Bare-Breasted Double-Standard

After watching this morning’s live-streaming of the 2012 Desiring God Pastor’s Conference, "God, Masculinity and Ministry," I am left once again pondering the seeming double-standards of the male-hierarchical church. 

As a bit of a disclaimer first, I want to make it clear that I do not believe these men and their female lackeys are purposely doing what I am about to suggest they may be doing. 

As a kind of prelude to today’s conference messages, I spent the majority of the day yesterday studying some of the feminist perspectives of the Female Modesty Movement, of which these guys strongly support. One suggestion, from a letter addressed to Jewish rabbi Dov Linzer, which I quoted in yesterday’s post, was that this push for female “modesty” might really be a matter of men trying to exert control over females. This suggestion was still fresh on my mind this morning as I tuned in to the conference to hear yet another Christian speaker endorsing the movie Braveheart as a good, "masculine movie."

I don’t want to get all tangled up in the gender debate today, namely because I am spent after yesterday’s debate, and then last night’s accusation against feminists as being heretical (Unitarians, to be exact), but I do want to point out, what looks to me as being, a double standard.

I have watched Braveheart years ago (and I am neither endorsing it nor am I disapproving of it), but I do seem to recall a pretty heated love scene in which a woman’s bare breasts are displayed for the entire watching world to see. (And, by the way, that would include these Christian men, my friends.)  Now, please don’t get me wrong; I am not disapproving of nudity in this post or even of Christian men watching it in movies – that is not what this blog post is about. I am simply picking up on a pretty bold-faced contradiction here.

We Christian women are told that we should cover up because we have a responsibility before God to protect men from their own lust and supposed sinful bents, and because men won’t respect us if we show a little skin. Again, I am not going to debate the principle of modesty today and whether or not it is a Biblical principle in terms of sexually-provocative dress, but I do want to know why it is so important that we women do not show a little cleavage in any context – even if it is not sexual – because it is considered an incitement for men around us to sin, when these same men whom we women are expected to protect, and who are claimed to be so sexually fragile, apparently are quite willing to knowingly subject themselves to an eyeful of completely uncovered breasts in their selection of movies – and then they endorse it as the archetype of masculinity!

The steamy sex scene (bare beasts and all, 4:10--4:36). Consider yourself warned.


 

So, if I were to mimic that scene in public - would that be considered appropriately modest since Christian men who are not married to this woman find it appropriate to look at?

How about a little consistency?
I could be wrong, I have been known to be wrong on occasion, (and that might be a bit of an understatement...ha-ha), but the only way I can process this contradiction is to identify it as nothing less than a sexist double-standard. 

It seems to me that the Christian men – more specifically, the Christian men who endorse movies like this and at the same time push for female modesty – are not really concerned with being tempted to sin through exposure to female unmentionables - that much is apparent here. No, it seems that they are more concerned with other men using “their” women - wives and daughters - when nobody else but them should have that right. Could it be that it's not about women at all; it's all about men securing their right to their own perceived possessions - their women? Or is it all about constructing a scapegoat so men can evade responsibility when they sin? Isn't that what we typically do - blame the woman? 
I really do think so. And then these men get together as spokesmen for all Christians (remember, men are the only ones who can speak authoritatively to the church), and this double standard is then institutionalized in a way that we women are led to believe it is really for our own good.

I am well aware that one of my weaknesses is my tendency to read too much into things. My husband tells me that all the time. But I firmly believe that there are foundational beliefs under-girding each of our ideologies, whether we are conscious of them or not. I admit, I am prone to pick things apart and there is the possibility that I am guilty of reading too much into yet another minor detail. Still, I would ask you to at least hear me out because the logic here is quite simple, if nothing else I think is.
 
 I think that if Christian men can handle being exposed to Catherine McCormack's breasts without falling into lustful sin, they can certainly handle being exposed to mine.

Unless these men can rectify this double-standard, I will have to agree with Shaul Magid and conclude that female modesty is really about male control over women. If I am wrong, then I would just like to say this to my brothers:

If I am expected to carry a burden that is not mine - the burden of dressing in a way that is mindful of your claimed vulnerabilities - then I ask you to take upon yourself and carry at least an equal share of the responsibility to keep your eyes from looking on anything that you don't want to see from me. I think that's fair, don't you? I mean, for you to carry half of your own burden? After all, it's very hard on me to bear the brunt of the weight all on my own widdle feminine showdas. I sure can use a hero, sir, and "you don't carry things because you have broad shoulders; you have broad shoulders so you can carry things."

I know, I know. That was childish.