Women: Gender as the symmetry of God

I am very curious to know what your first thoughts and expectations were for a post beginning with the title "Women." Did you think it would be a woman's liberation type message? An indignant rant about the injustices of the feminine plight? Well, let me clarify - this is not about any combative point. I just had a moment yesterday of making some idle comparisons between men and women, and I wondered if a little exploration of the feminine role (followed by an exploration of the male role) would together make up the image of God.

Perhaps I need a disclaimer here. I don't mean to alienate the agnostic or the atheist in my discussions, but I cannot help but see God as the fundamental element of life's definition. God, to me is the as yet undiscovered definition to everything. I oversimplify, but God is the only containment for the vastness of existence that I can find any peace from. Biblical descriptions of God include one as the I AM and I like this definition because it follows the idea that God is the all-encompassing entity. That being said, I press on.

Now, let me be honest. My hopes for where this post will take us are MUCH more noble than the reasons I thought of it. What I'm saying is that yes, the words "that's just like a man!" have breeched my well developed censoring, and escaped my lips. So the post began with me being a woman aware of the differences between her way of thinking versus a more male way. When I remembered the pilgrimage to love that I am still currently on though, I realised that there is beauty in the differences between the sexes. Perhaps, I thought, we may discover more of the character of God if we consider ourselves as being halves of a whole God. If we think of ourselves in this way, then maybe we can experience God, or we can gain a deeper understanding if we gain an appreciation for the male and female differences. So, where do we begin? This post is meant to celebrate what makes women valuable to society and explore that value as an element of God.

To briefly go back to what this post is not about, just in my research on postmodern women, there is a volume of literature and media on the feminine plight. I came across one video that I think is worth the watch. Sheryl Standberg takes her audience at a TED talk through her theories on why women are not more present in leadership. I liked the tone of her presentation, because it came from a solely encouraging angle. A "Women, you deserve good things, and here are a few suggestions for getting those" type slant. I am more in favour of this than I am of necessarily negating the traditionally feminine roles in favour of career pursuit, or of blending the gender roles to such an extent that man and woman are indistinguishable from each other.

Traditional Woman's Role
I can think of a few feminine clichés off the top of my head for the traditional category of the role of women. The nurturer, the home-maker, the wife, the mother. There is so much contention over the necessity of these roles for women that it distracts me even as I am trying to make the point of saying that these are valuable social roles, irrespective of gender. It is no new discovery that because of a rigid oppression to maintain these positions, and these positions only (with the exception of adding the "bread winner" role), women's liberation became a necessary endeavour. I worry though, that we as women may relinquish too much of what is our beautiful role and experience in our pursuit of liberation.

Let me explain myself. I am a very assertive, strong-willed, independent and opinionated lady. This makes it much easier for me to avert the negative stereotypes of a sexist audience. The stereotype is that women are fickle and weak, that they cower at the slightest male impatience and that their delicate sensitivities or dependent nature would get in the way of their career or other, less feminine pursuits. My life and the life of thousands of women just like me fly in the face of this stereotype, but not without negative consequence. An assertive woman who is opinionated and driven is often seen as pushy and less feminine. A woman who is more likely to argue with opinions she doesn't agree with and who has a very definite presence will have to work extra hard at being seen as the softer, more feminine woman that generally, society still portrays as more attractive. So in a very traditional sense, a woman has the protected role; she is provided for, more vulnerable, she assumes the role of nurturing her family, and depicts a greater sense of softness.

My point is that I think we have lost something in the fight for equality. In line with all the qualities I listed earlier, when on a date I will offer to pay for my meal, but I will be pleased when he (which he inevitably does) bemusedly declines. I think I would not really want to go on a second date with a guy who didn't pay for dinner. It's not really about the money, but about the precedent. I like the feminine role of being provided for; I think this is good and as a woman I feel validated by his suggestion that he would like to do this. I don't see this as a reflection of me (whether I am capable of providing for myself), but of him (that he is desirous of providing for me). Why would this be a validating suggestion?

I go back now to the idea of our roles as a depiction of God. Surely God does not need provision? I am reminded that right above I have described exactly that. The idea of the woman being desirous of the man's provision without being in need of it sounds like a fit superimposition. There are several references of God "calling to us", and if we think of our provision being the offer of our acknowledgement and pursuit of God then it is still biblical to assert that God is desirous of our provision of self. Is God vulnerable? At first thought that seems unlikely, but I think it has to be true. If there was no risk (hence, invulnerability) in God's position with us, then there would be no emotion either. I think in order to be moved by someone or something, you have to become less impervious to it and by extension, vulnerable.

God often assumes the role of Father, and calls the church the Bride of Christ. Passages like the one below depict God as a nurturing keeper, and depicts a great tenderness for humanity:

"As you get in touch with painful events from the past, you may feel bitter and cry out to me, 'Why did my way seem hidden to you?' My child, I am the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth, the One who measured the waters in the hollow of my hand. I bring out the starry hosts one by one and call them each by name. Because of my great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. No one can fathom the depths of my knowledge and understanding. I long to be gracious to you; I rise to show you compassion; I am a God of justice, the God of the womb, and your El Shaddai. Blessed are all those who wait for me." (Isaiah 40:27-30; 12,26; 30:18)*

So, I know this post doesn't go into great detail about the empirically defined female characteristics versus their male counterparts, and it does dabble in feminism, despite my earlier claims, but I guess I got a little enthusiastic in my research. The biggest point for me in this conversation about the value of the feminine role is that there are great strengths even in what the world we live in considers to be weakness. I find that I, as a strong, independent woman of the 21st century still find myself in pursuit of that woman's role where I can be both that and the vulnerable, the softer, the nurturing lover of man. Much like God is.