24 June 2012
Be smart
Many effects of the gender-free playworld we've fabulized are silly or stupid, but some are downright dangerous. Read any old-timey book and you will find a population of people who understand implicitly that a male and a female who are not related to each other (and some who are) should not be alone together in private. It is dangerous to both. One may accuse the other of having said or done something inappropriate, or anyone at all may make the same accusation because there are no witnesses. A damaged reputation is nearly impossible to repair, as anyone who has suffered one knows.
One or the other may actually say something inappropriate, which is even worse.
But worst of all is that one of them may do something inappropriate. Or one of them may even do something horrible, and this is where it becomes clear that the danger to women is much greater. They have so much more to lose, and so much less ability to defend themselves.
There is no law, no rule of etiquette, no Scriptural injunction, no cultural memory that tells us a male and a female who are not related to each other should not be alone together in private. But they shouldn't--even if they are coworkers, even if they are friends, even if they are not friends, even if it will save on gas, even if everybody's wife and husband are OK with it, even if it's just for a little while. It's a bad and dangerous idea. It is a courtesy to both parties to find an alternative, however inconvenient, to this situation.
Things I haven't said:
All men are or want to be rapists
Pastors shouldn't counsel women or hear their confessions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
My sister once told me, before I was married, that her husband had set this rule for her as they wed. The rule included family. He did not EVER want her alone with a man or to allow a man into the house when he wasn't home, even if it was his brother stopping by to pick up or drop off the cousins, and they are a very close family! I remember scoffing in my mind and thinking he was nuts.
He's not nuts. He's an amazing husband/protector for my sister and I am so blessed to have the same kind of husband. Be smart indeed.
On a gut level I always understood why Ma Ingalls sent Mr. Edwards home when Pa was away. It was not so much about his character as it was about her common sense.
I know this is re: adults, but, I'll push it over into the arena of childrearing. Many folks lovingly (and they do love me) tell me that I "need a break" from the kids as "it would be healthy for you". I agree. I love when I get to run errands or take a drive by myself. But, getting a babysitter whose credibility is based on recommendation is simply not acceptable to me. That teenage girl may be sweet as pie and even be ok being tied up by my kids, but experience has shown me that you can not always count on that sweet girl not to let her brother or her boyfriend into the house when you're gone. OR that the really nice older lady won't let her son (or gardener for that matter) in her house while you're gone for those two hours - never thinking the worse. And as the post points out, there are levels to violation. Touching your kid isn't the only bad thing a person can do them.
Turns out sense is the least common thing out there.
I know, off topic - but since we're talking about smartness . . . My close friends' husbands always leave me feeling a little awkward and that's a good thing - because they are indeed men. We can talk about the weather but after that it's pretty boring.
Thank you for once again pointing out what should be obvious common sense. But of course it isn't, to a culture which can't even tell its right hand from its left. We are odd, but I'm with you, and I thank God for you.
Ha, I just read Genesis 39 and know a patriarch who would agree wholeheartedly with this post ("But one day, when he went into the house to do his work and none of the men of the house was there in the house, she caught him by his garment..."}. So it's at least obliquely Scriptural ;)
I'm just thinking this through - given the comments here - would you for see of a time when your daughters would be allowed to date unchaperoned?
Anon--I believe that a male and a female who are not related to each other should not be alone together in private.
Lisa, I love what you said about feeling awkward around your good friends' husbands. I always worried something was wrong with me for feeling this way, but I do, really awkward, like I want to hide. I'd always rather be in a separate room with my friend then in the company of her husband as well. It's a little easier if my husband is there with me but I always find myself gravitating to another room. But you're right, he indeed is a man, the head of a woman, and since he's not my head and yet is a manly authority= weird.
Following up with Anon's question. Did you feel this conviction about maintaining this set-apartness while you, yourselves, were dating? It makes sense that if it worked well for you it would be something you'd want for your children.
Anon 2, a male and a female who are not related to each other should not be alone together in private. There are all kinds of personal experiences, good and bad, mine and others', within and outside the context of "dating" to demonstrate this.
Our pastor always told engaged couples "Abstain from all appearance of evil." 1 Thess. 5:22
That means that even if an unmarried couple believe they're both strong enough to be alone together without sinning ("It is good for a man NOT to touch a woman." 1 Cor 7:1), which is a huge assumption on their part, if their unchaperoned comings and goings present even the appearance of sin to others it could not only damage the couple's integrity in the community but may also cause weaker members who emulate their behavior to enter into temptation and/or sin.
Agreed. I'm not even sure that guys and girls CAN be just friends. I've seen many extra-marital affairs begin by co-workers or high-school acquaintances going out for coffee or lunch alone together, and justifying it because they were "just friends."
I just returned from Colorado, where a man destroyed 22 homes because he thought he could control the fire he lit. Huh.
I completely get what you're saying, friend, but I'm thinking of so many situations in which I would not tend to practice this because it's just not realistic. For example, when I was majoring in music, all of my piano professors (I had three at various times) were male. I had a male voice teacher and a male organ teacher (yes, I took organ for a little while in college--not that it shows!). I spent countless hours in private with those men. I also spent a lot of hours in private with male singers and instrumentalists that I was accompanying (in part because I was required as a piano major to do so for credit). It would not have been possible in most of these cases to practice in a public place or leave the door open because music rehearsal is by its nature something you generally don't want to subject others to. :-) I suppose something bad could have happened in some of those situations. I am thankful nothing ever did, and I so appreciate everything you are saying about not only the dangers of such situations but the goal of protecting reputations. But again, I am not sure that it would be realistic for me as a musician to hold to this guideline.
Anyway, I am totally "there" when it comes to this as a general principle, but I can't sign on 100% (and I know you still love me).
What would you suggest for those of us single women who have to work to support ourselves? My job (and most jobs in general) requires regularly working, conversing, traveling, etc. one-on-one with male co-workers. Under this idea, it seems I would not be able to work to support myself.
As for me, I'd rather be (and raise a daughter to be) a strong, independent woman who knows what is right, respects myself, and can stand up for myself in hairy situations. This makes more sense to me than avoiding being alone with a male just because there's a remote chance that someone may say or do something inappropriate. Ultimately, I will just trust myself, and any daughters I may eventually have, to make the right decisions.
Cheryl, I know. There's no good way. I just mean that I think society is better served to have caution and propriety as its default setting rather than the "We're all the same!" farce that has been normalized. If society won't, I will (not that I avoided those student/professional situations, either).
Anon, most jobs occur in public, and most employers are careful about not creating potential for a sexual harrassment or assault lawsuit (although churches tend to be beyond stupid about it--the children of this world are in their generation wiser). So we've got that going for us. But an employer is only out a bunch of money if something bad goes down. The victim loses a whole lot more (often including the job).
As for trusting myself, I don't. I also don't trust other sinners. And standing up for oneself is pretty hard when someone stronger is holding one down. Incidentally, there was a time in my life when I'd have written the exact same thing you did. (I don't at all mean for that to be condescending.)
Fantastic post! Something of which to be mindful, especially for me as a pastor's wife. Thank you!
What do you suggest in the event a trustee stops by while dh is out to do a quick repair in the house (parsonage)?
If something has happened to you in your past to make you feel this way, I am truly sorry. However, we cannot live our lives with a misplaced fear of everyone and everything just because there is a slight chance something bad may happen. That is like saying we shouldn't drive in cars because there is a chance we might crash and get hurt. The trust I have in myself and in others in all situations is based on my faith in God-that He will never leave me nor forsake me, and that He will not give me more than I can handle.
As someone who has recently graduated from law school and has experience in a prosecutor's office, I am well aware of the potential for sexual harassment and assault claims, both in the workplace and outside of it. Entering the legal field, I can think of countless situations were I will have to meet with male clients and male attorneys one-on-one. The same can be said about the medical field or any other profession that requires one to take appointments with other people.
I don't think Rebekah is saying that inappropriateness will always happen when a male and female are alone together. She is saying that it does happen and that our sinful natures will lean towards it.
So, by all means, please put your trust in God who promises to never leave you nor forsake you nor to give you more than you can handle, but please don't put it in yourself or in others. For, God's promise is to love us and to save us in Jesus unto eternal life, not that we will never suffer in this world at the hand of depravity.
Elizabeth, a crowd of kids makes a decent chaperone. :D See, I'm not exactly a purist. Not my favorite scenario, either.
Anon, if I may add to Katie's apt observations: another commenter to this site once pointed out that "God won't give me more than I can handle" is not an actual divine promise (1 Cor 10:13, I know . . . and yet I have many sins to confess). In this post I sought to advocate prudence in a belligerently imprudent society. Congratulations on your graduation and career. I wish for you much success, and an office with a window. :)
Ahh, it's the same discussion from our deaconess class this spring. Good food for thought....
Also hi, I've been reading but am new to commenting :)
Our pastor always left the door ajar; current offices all have outside windows.
We actually heard this in our pre-marriage counseling, and when I brought it up in class at the sem, I was poo-poohed.
One of the rules was if you had to be alone or in a car (rare), you had to call the other spouse and let them know.
I've seen my husband walking about town instead of driving somewhere with a female - cracks me up - in a good way.
Post a Comment