Sunday 30 June 2013

True Courage

I've been very busy (a new house, stomach flu, pregnancy, you know-- just life) and so haven't had much time to post, but I was very moved by a specific part of the sermon on Matthew 27:32-44 at our church this morning: 

"Here we see Jesus refusing to stop the pain and suffering that he is offering to God on our behalf. It is this strand in particular that should move our hearts to trust in Christ with our entire lives. In verse 34, he is offered wine mixed with gall. The practice of offering a pain suppressor to dying people is founded in the pages of the OT: "Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress." (Proverbs 31:6) So this was probably a narcotic to dull pain. But based on the verse that it fulfills from Psalm 69, it may have even been a poison to stop the pain permanently: "They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink." (Psalm 69:21) Regardless whether it was a narcotic or poison, Jesus refuses to take it. He will not give himself relief until the full price for our sins in paid-He has determined to pay the full price of every ransomed sinner."

I can't even begin to imagine the kind of courage and conviction Christ displayed. My pastor, Tim, went on to talk about how those mocking Christ also suggested he come down from the cross to prove he was the Son of God. Jesus could've easily come down, but he chose not to; he chose to hang there, shamed and discredited in the eyes of the watching world, because he had his eyes on a greater prize than vindication in the eyes of the world, and he had in his heart a greater love than the love of his own reputation. Christ endured his excruciating pain and the mocking barbs of his killers to save his people. To save a wretch like me!

What a different picture Christ presents of godly manhood than the media of the world-- where advertising and film present a version of "courage" that is full of aggression, swagger, self-aggrandisement, physical strength, and earthly rewards, Christ's courage was in just the opposite: meekness, silence, shame, physical torture, and eternal rewards. In light of the love and sacrifice of my Saviour, I pray that I can display this kind of humble courage myself, and teach my son that this is true manliness, not the picture the world presents.

Friday 21 June 2013

Dr. Amy Cuddy on "Power Posing"



Last night Steven and I watched this TEDTalk on "power posing" and how it reconfigures the hormones in your brain to be more powerful-- in the sense of authentic, engaging, confident, and passionate (not in the sense of lording it over others or being the alpha dog).

I thought it was fascinating as it relates to my recent post on canting. Dr. Cuddy describes how a person who is insecure or feeling weak "collaspes into themselves" with head down, arms down and towards the torso, and feet and knees together. It's certainly not identical to canting, but it bears some striking similarities: the tendency of the head to be angled downwards, of the arms not to lift above the shoulders, of the feet or arms to be crossed. As well, both feature an off-balanced positioning. Both serve the same purpose, though for different reasons: to persuade onlookers that the poser is not a threat.

Now, the low-power postures Dr. Cuddy describes are an instinctual, emotionally-hardwired way of reacting to feeling weak, while canting is a culturally-learned way of responding to peer pressure (i.e. canting is seen as how feminine and desirable women pose in our culture, and most women would like to be seen as feminine and desirable.) But I wonder if the reaction of women's bodies to canting is the same as the reaction of our bodies to low-power posing; I wonder if canting actually causes us to be more easily stressed, more likely to hide our true passions and personalities, and less confident. I can only speculate, since that wasn't within the scope of Dr. Cuddy's study, but certainly it's a point worth considering. It makes me want to stand a little straighter and square my shoulders when I face the world-- what about you?

Saturday 15 June 2013

Film Review: Heart: The Marilyn Bell Story

Heart: The Marilyn Bell Story is a Canadian film about a Canadian hero: 16-year-old Marilyn Bell, who in 1954 attempted the longest swim on record, a grueling 52-kilometer swim across Lake Ontario. It's a simple story-- told far more simply than if it had been made in Hollywood-- but I really liked it. It was well-acted, and the swim and the odds against Bell completing it drew me in.



Role of Women: What I loved about the way women were treated (with one exception) in this film is that they all but ignored a world where women are viewed as less. Marilyn faces opposition to her swimming dreams from many people at different points in the film: her mother doesn't think she can succeed, her coach initially refuses to train her because she's such a novice, her competitor, professional American swimmer Florence Chadwick, refuses to even acknowledge her as competition, and the CNE attempts to cut her out of the Lake Ontario swim altogether. But no one ever mentions that she can't do it because she's a girl. They say she's young, slight, an untested novice attempting a record-breaking swim-- but nobody ever says she shouldn't be pursuing her dream because of her gender. So many films of this sort make the heroine a scrappy, won't-be-put-in-a-box, chafes-against-the-social-conventions-of-the-day type of girl. There is a place for that, but it was very refreshing that they never had anyone criticize Marilyn because she was athletic, or have her coach, male fellow swim club members, or men in the press treat her as a sex object or as less valuable, and she in turn never needs to be resentful of her femaleness.

I also loved the vulnerability of Marilyn's character. Remember in my post One-Sided? I talked about realistic, interesting women? That's what Marilyn is. She's shy, but willing to advocate for herself despite feeling awkward. She's afraid of creatures in the water and swimming in the dark (and the poor girl gets attacked by lamprey eels in the water at night when she starts her epic swim) and needs the help of her coach's hardheartedness to push through her fears and carry on. She laughs, she cries, she has a good friendship with another girl in her swim club, they don't toss in a quick romance for the sake of the modern audience. In short, she's exactly the kind of character Hollywood could use a lot more of. Overall, I think the treatment of women in this film was very positive.

Sexualization of Women: Here's the one niggle I had with the film. Marilyn's opponent, the older, proven swimmer Florence Chadwick, in what I suppose to be an effort to make her seem more "villainous" and so up the tension of the film, is portrayed as a vain, selfish, glamour queen. From what I can find out on the Internet, she wasn't all that glamourous, but in the film they had her unabashedly using her sex appeal to manipulate the men around her, hanging out in her hotel room painting her toenails when everybody was waiting for her to start the swim, generally seeming to care more about her physical appearance than her sport or the world around her. Now, I can't say for sure, but this doesn't seem to me to be the kind of attitude that an extremely talented, successful long-distance swimmer like Chadwick would take towards her sport. Basically, the film implied that she used her glamorous looks and some suggestive behaviour to get the CNE executive to offer her the $10,000 prize for swimming Lake Ontario. I think the film could have created a sense of competition and shown Chadwick as an older, more worldly and experienced opponent without cheapening her like that. Still, this was one or two brief scenes in a movie that falls overwhelmingly on the positive side.

Bechdel Test Pass/Fail: Pass. Marilyn and her mother, Marilyn and her sister, and Marilyn and her good friend Joan all have plenty of conversations about things other than men (mostly about swimming).

Male:Female Ratio: 50:50! Nice-- just like the real world. Out of ten main(ish) characters, five were women.

Thursday 13 June 2013

Canting-- What's That?

So I went pretty full-on theological last night so I thought I'd switch things up a little bit tonight and talk more pop-culture. I don't know if people caught my mention of "canting" in my review of Now You See Me. It's not a very common word, and to be honest, even the Internet doesn't have much to say about it, but it's an extremely, scarily common happenstance.

So what is canting? Well, the dictionary tells us, "1. Angular deviation from a vertical or horizontal plane or surface; an inclination or slope." In terms of female body language, The Achilles Effect describes it as one of "the many ways that female bodies, when displayed in popular culture, are sexualized and positioned to communicate submissiveness and powerlessness. Showing females in a recumbent position is one way of communicating this message and canting is another... the crossed leg position, standing on one leg, the torso twisted away from the vertical, and the head cant. All of these positions serve to place the female character off balance and give her an air of vulnerability."

So that's the wordy definition, but a picture is worth a thousand words, so here are a few:






Getting the idea? In children's media-- and comic books for adults*-- the canting is very obvious, to an almost grotesque degree, and it is quite common for it to be dismissed on the grounds of them being cartoons, exaggerating the characteristics of the characters because that's what cartoons do. In the adult movie posters it can be more subtle, as in the Italian Job, just a little bit of chest-thrust, with head down and a leg stuck off to one side, or it can be quite obvious, as in the Pirates poster, with Kiera Knightly's tilted head and seductive glance and her hand pointing right at her chest.** These postures are in stark contrast to the sort of poses men hold; consider the Gatsby poster where all the male characters have their shoulders squared directly to the camera (as do the male leads Jack, Will, and Charlie in the other two posters). 

 It becomes a bit of a chicken-or-egg debate, whether the movies are just reflecting that women do subtly stand this way because of their generally-larger hips and different center of balance and what have you, or whether women learn to stand like this because it's presented in media. If you think it's the former, do a little experiment (if you're a lady). Check out that Disney poster up at the top, and try on all those poses. Then ask yourself-- is it really natural for me to stand like this? Ask yourself a few more questions-- if I were standing like this in a public place, would I feel awkward because of what my body language was communicating to the men around me? Try this one: if I had a 15-16 year old daughter (the average age of Disney princesses), how would I feel if she was standing like this in a public place? 

I'm just going to go ahead and take my stance on the chicken-or-egg debate-- women stand like this as a learned behaviour, not as a reflection of some kind of innate knowledge that this is the most feminine way to stand. Since I've agreed pictures are worth a thousand words, here's another in favour of that argument:



When did we go from this kind of thing to what we see in the movie posters above? Someone else can trace that lineage. What I'm concerned about is why this ubiquitous canting pose matters. I propose a couple of reasons:

1) Posture! When we stand with our feet totally together, or toes turned inward, or when we always rest our weight on one hip, or have one shoulder off-balance, or our head tilted, or our torso curved or twisted (all fairly common for women; try comparing male and female postures the next time you're in a crowd), we're trading off future, and even current, comfort and health in order to fit into a media-driven, sexually-charged standard of beauty (sort of like what we do with high-heeled shoes, or chemical-heavy make-up). This happens pretty subconsciouly, because much like figures of speech, we pick up "appropriate" body language and position from our culture without too much conscious decision-making going on. Which is kind of unfair to us in this instance, but that's why there needs to be people pointing it out.

Also, and more importantly...

2) Value. When we fall into line with a canting posture, we are nonverablly communicating a false idea about men and women-- taking the Biblical warrant to submit to our husbands far beyond the realm of marriage and adopting a submissive posture before all men. This is not Scripturally-mandated, and it is not Scripturally-lauded. When I think of the daughters of Zelophehad fighting for their right to keep the family inheritance in Joshua, Ruth proposing to Boaz so she could fulfill the Scripture mandate to maintain a family name, Tamar risking her life and reputation to do the same, Esther steeling herself to face the king and die for her people if need be, Deborah stepping up where the male leadership of Israel was doubtful and did not trust the Lord, Rahab hiding spies because she could see where the Lord's favour lay, the Proverbs 31 woman making investments and working with strength and diligence, Anna with her decades of unwavering faith, Mary standing up straight before the prospect of ridicule, shame, divorce-- everything in her life crashing down around her-- and saying "I am the Lord's handmaiden"... when I think of these women that the Scriptures honour and commemorate, I don't think about their soft, yielding dispositions to the world around them. They are women of courage, of rock-solid faith in the promise of God, bold to risk ridicule or death for the sake of that promise, even if the leadership-- the government of Jericho, Barak the judge, the partriarch Judah-- did not believe or value that promise. I don't doubt that women like Mary, Anna, and Ruth were submissive to their husbands as the Scripture requires. But without being aggressive or unwomanly in the least, the woman I listed above do display what John Piper calls "massive steel in their backs and theology in their brains".

Of course, it's as plain as the nose on your face that God did provide two different (general) body shapes to men and women (with lots of variations within that general theme for both genders). It is not plain to me at all the He wants women to damage their bodies and accentuate their sexuality for the sake of seeming submissive or nonconfrontational towards a wider mankind to whom they owe no such allegiance.

So, in closing, one more image, a turnaround by Kevin Bolk of a poster for The Avengers that puts the one female character in a front-facing, nonsexual pose instead of vice-versa. It's actually incredibly awkward and embarrassing to look at-- which is exactly how the original poster would look if we weren't so desensitized to the sexualisation of women by the sheer magnitude of the imagery that does it. Think about that.

And, hey, I warned you when I started out that these were going to be incredibly verbose blog posts. At least there's lots of pictures here.

 *If you have any doubts about that, check out the Hawkeye Initiative, which sheds stark light on just how far comic book creators will go in twisting the female body to make it "sexy".
 **It actually comes a lot more obvious, particularly in low-brow comedies or romance movies, but I'm sparing you that.

Wednesday 12 June 2013

Some Heavy Reading For Your Wednesday Night

This article by Irvin A. Busenitz was just brought to my attention in the comments on my post Thoughts On "A (Somewhat) Scholarly Analysis Of Genesis 3:16"*. It features some rather dense, scholarly reading exploring the Hebrew words and use of context at play in Genesis 3:16.

If you're still in doubt about how to correctly interpret this passage, I would encourage you to read the whole article. I feel very confident after reading it that the new interpretation that developed during second-wave feminism-- that women desire to dominate men because of the curse-- is not the correct one.

If you're not up for reading all eleven pages, here's an excerpt from the conclusion:

"The central consideration in the interpretation of Gen 3:16b is context; the meaning of "desire" is best determined in the light of its immediate contextual setting. The context bespeaks procreation and the continuation of life, not the desire to dominate. Furthermore, to appeal to Gen 4:7 with its manifold obscurities to unlock the interpretive door of Gen 3:16 is to throw exegetical caution to the wind. It is much safer to apply the meaning of [Hebrew word] in Cont 7:10** to Gen 3:16, for while it does not enjoy the near proximity of Gen 4:7, its meaning is plain and its interpretation is vitually unquestioned. Consequently, it should be granted preeminence over Gen 4:7 and become the primary cross-reference in ascertaining the meaning of "desire.""
"The text does not sustain the interpretation that one aspect of the woman's judgment is that she will desire to dominate and control the man. The last phrase of Gen 3:16 is not a part of the judgment; it is an explanatino and description of conditions which will exist after the fall. Thus, the last phrase could be translated: "you you will still desire [as you did before the Fall, though now tainted by sin] your husband, and he will still rule [as he did before the Fall, though now tainted by sin] over you."


*I think Busenitz's article is more cautious with the text than article by Alsup which I originally posted. Both posit an alternative meaning for "her desire shall be for her husband" but I think Busenitz's requires less stretching of the text. At any rate, neither support the idea of female domination as part of the curse.
**That's Song of Solomon. Took me forever to figure that out so I'm letting you know now. Or maybe I'm the only one who might've been confused.

Tuesday 11 June 2013

One-Sided?

Someone remarked about the movie review I just did, "Role of women? What about the role of men? Isn't that a little one-sided?" I would like to address that here.

See, yes, it is one-sided. Just like the problem.

Because while there are certainly ways in which Hollywood stereotypes men and makes them one-dimensional and even sexualises them, there is nothing like the same kind of systemic, far-reaching problem as there is with the way women are portrayed in film.

Consider the following:
-According to a recent study by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, male characters have nearly three-quarters of the speaking parts in children's entertainment, and in family films, male characters outnumber females 3:1.
-The majority of movies do not pass the Bechdel Test, either featuring only one token female character, or by never having two females cross paths, or by putting two females together and having them only advance the plot on behalf of the male characters. Even more movies only pass the Bechdel Test by one conversation. Try to imagine a world where the reverse was true-- most movies only had one man and if there were two, they wouldn't ever speak unless to talk about the female main character.
-Except for in films made specifically for a female audience, the vast majority of leads are male.

I have to agree with Geena Davis' assessment. Have you noticed recently that the women in your life are hard to come by (drastically outnumbered by the males?) No? What about how they interact? Have you noticed that women tend to avoid each other like the plague unless they are getting together to talk about a man? No? Hmmm... Well, have you noticed that whenever you talk to a female you're bored to tears? Still no?

Okay, so now that we've established that that's not how the world works, I can establish why I want to approach film reviews from a perspective of the role of women. It's not because I think women are more important than men-- it's that I think they're just as important, and Hollywood is doing a terrible job of communicating that. If we aren't aware of just how one-dimensional and marginalized Hollywood makes their female characters, we will unwittingly absorb the message that women are more one-dimensional and less important than men. Like any of the subtle underlying biases in film, being aware of the problem is our best protection against assimilating the message. So I point out the maginalization of women in movies not because I enjoy complaining-- it's because I want change. I want people just starting out in film to think about why a man shouldn't enjoy a story about a woman, to think about what they're saying if they never make two female characters interact. I want movie-goers to come away from the theatre and to say, "The way they had that female character act was unrealistic because x," and then think about what real women are like and go out into the world with realistic, interesting women in their heads instead of a stereotype.

I've heard it said regarding this issue, "Once you see it, you can't unsee it." Thankfully, it's true. And once you're seeing it everywhere, you can become one more voice asking for something different-- something better.

Sunday 9 June 2013

Film Review: Now You See Me

So, I thought I'd add a little intermittent feature to the blog where I review movies for their treatment of women, sexuality, relationships and roles. This week Steven and I went to see Now You See Me at an ill-advised 10:30 showing, so I'll start there.


Role of Women: It's nice to see that they had two female characters who were fleshed out beyond just "women who fall in love with men in the film" (although both of them did) I especially appreciated the character Alma Dray, the female Interpol detective whose intuitive, observational-- more feminine-- style of investigating is portrayed in a positive light against Rhodes' (supposedly) more aggressive, logical, "masculine" style. Often when films cast a woman in a military, police, or other more "combative" role, they work hard to make her seem tough, hardboiled, and no-nonsense. Dray uses co-operation, careful research, and intuition to make strides in the case that Rhodes would not have been able to make on his own, and I appreciated that portrayal.

Henley fared a little worse, especially at the hands of Merrit, who blatantly considers her merely as a sex object. Which would be okay, because there are men like that, except that she doesn't seem to mind at all when, for example, the first thing he does on meeting her is look her over and assess her value solely based on her appearance. Like, sure, that's not creepy at all.

Still, overall I think it did a lot better than many similar films. I could've done without Henley falling in love with J. Daniel Atlas despite him doing nothing to reform the arrogance and self-absorption that she dislikes in him at the beginning of the movie, and it's a bit funny that an Interpol detective would casually overlook her love interest's massive bank robbery but overall, I think the treatment of women in this film was fair-to-middling. (If only the character development of the film matched that, but that's a subject for someone else's film review...)

Sexualization of Women: Considering the strong precedent the filmmakers had to dress Henley in the traditionally skimpy costumes of women in magic, I was pretty impressed that they only had her in one such costume, when she's doing her solo work. And arguably that is realistic both because she was working in entertainment, and because of the trick she was doing (long heavy clothes would probably interfere with her lockpicking and escape from the water tank). Once she was with the Four Horsemen, she was generally not dressed in a revealing matter.

However-- whatever art team was in charge of the poster above totally missed the memo and thought cleavage, legs, and canting were the best way to portray her character. Where all the male characters communicate a sense of purpose, with straight-on glances and squared shoulders (except Freeman who is posed more to communicate his observational role in the movie), Henley has a sidelong, come-hither sort of glance/head pose and is dressed to display her sexuality instead of the drive and purpose she shares with the other three Horsemen.

Bechdel Test Pass/Fail: Fail. Features two (and only two) named female characters, but they never speak.

Male:Female Ratio: Out of eight main characters, two were female. That said, in modern day magic, rough estimates suggest that women make up only 3-8% of the professional magical workforce, so actually, I think, kudos to the filmmakers for casting a female magician and portraying her as a solid and talented solo act (instead of the sexy assistant role The Prestige filmmakers, for example, gave their magic lady.)

Friday 7 June 2013

Culture Check: Then and Now


The image above was tweeted by the group Let Toys Be Toys, which lobbies retailers to stop seling toys by gender and instead sell them by category. On the left, it shows items from the retailer Argo's 1970's catalog of toys; on the right, current equivalents from their website.

Aside from the obviously much poorer construction, design and materials used, what immediately strikes is the barrage of pink. It is unrealistic (do you know anybody with a pink house?) but, more troublingly, it fosters what I consider an extremely negative and unbiblical gender stereotype.

See, it totally excludes little boys from two fundamental parts of life: having and caring for a house, and having and caring for a child. By drenching all the household items and childcare toys in pink, which in our society is strongly coded "female", it is telling little boys that this isn't for them.

Believe me, this is not innate. My one-year-old loves balls and tools and cars, and I have had people say to me many times something along the lines of "He's a real little boy, isn't he?" because of this. And yes, absolutely he is. A real little boy who runs to get his little broom when Mummy's sweeping and his little vacuum cleaner when Mummy's vacuuming. A real little boy who loves feeding his Ernie doll tea and snacks, or rocking the weird little androgynous baby doll his great-grandma gave him and "singing" to it (think tuneless "la, la, la" noises). A real little boy who is just as fascinated by a bunny as by a motorcycle, who loves reading as much as running around outside, in short, who is fascinated and attracted everything in his world, not just the things that are typically considered "boy things".

And I want it to stay that way. I wish I could protect him from finding out as he got older that pink toy kitchens are where the girls play, from his little boy friends telling him something he likes and is interested in is "girly". Because if I could protect him from that, maybe I could protect him from the larger implications of it as he got older. From well-meaning adults asking him how many girlfriends he has as if it is somehow manly to be two-timing a woman. From the beer commercials portraying a man with a bevy of pretty girls around him as the kind of guy my son should want to be like. From the jokes in movies about girls desperately pushing for commitment while guys are just looking to "play the field" and have fun. Basically, from the larger cultural message that tells boys that they don't want commitment and family leadership and responsibilities-- they want meaningless sex with as many girls as possible, and to not get "caught" by any of them.

How does this little pink buggy play into that? It subtly, insidiously starts teaching boys that home life, parenthood, domestic bliss- those are "girly". Little kids don't have the insight to look at a commercial or advertisement for a toy directed at them and to see the way the marketer has figured out what makes them tick to push them towards a certain product. They don't know that toy marketers use a "divide and conquer" strategy: if you can convince little boys and little girls that they shouldn't like the same kinds of toys, you can sell twice as many toys. They don't know that the world and the devil want them to be anything but committed, engaged husbands and fathers. But they do feel the peer pressure and their instinct to be accepted by their gender telling them to stay away from the "wrong" toys. Oh, how I wish I could protect my son from that!

Instead, son, I pray you grow up to be like your Daddy. He is a tender and caring father and a wise and responsible caretaker of his home, and those are two ways that he shows the kind of manliness the Bible praises and that points to God: not swagger and infidelity and carelessness, but deep commitment to His bride and tender and compassionate Fatherhood.

Monday 3 June 2013

"Ladies..."

Actually, this post is not addressed to ladies. I'm looking at you, gentlemen. Have you ever walked into a roomful of your buddies and teasingly referred to them this way: "Hello, ladies..."? Have you ever, prior perhaps to showing off your skills at some sport or other manly achievement before your male friends, announced that you'd "Show you women how it's done?" Ever told a little boy not to cry or be afraid of something because that's "girly"?

I'm going to assume that most of my readers are not the kind of people who would use vile language like this (I'm leaving it to your discretion whether you follow that link because there is some very offensive language in it but I think it's worth reading to see that what I'm talking about here can be taken a lot farther.) But have you ever thought about the implications of calling other men "women" as an insult?

Yes, God created us differently. We are physically different, we are emotionally different, we are mentally different, we have different roles. But God calls you, gentlemen, to honour women for their differences. And even lightheartedly, when you use 'girly' or 'women' or 'ladies' as an insult, you are saying that it is shameful to be a women. There is no corresponding set of insults that women use on your gender. I urge you to do us the same courtesy and not use our gender as a way of putting people down.

At any rate, I'm not sure God wants you to use your physical strength as a means of putting down other men. Sure, enjoy the physical strength God gave you. But God is far more concerned with your manly character-- your moral courage, your care for those weaker than you, your loving leadership-- than your manly ability to excel your peers on the soccer field. So why not start using the language of character instead of the language of gender to distinguish between the praiseworthy and the dishonourable? And if you're going to teach a little boy to display courage and self-control, could you perhaps use those words (and their counterparts, fear/cowardice and self-indulgence), rather than my gender?

Sunday 2 June 2013

Showing Honour

I was over at my in-laws last night and it often strikes me when I am with them what godly, lovely people they both are. One way I see this is the way my father-in-law will often disappear quietly into the kitchen after a busy meal. See, my in-laws are known for their hospitality, so their family of six (still at home) is often supplemented with lots of company. After a long day where both of them are tired, I suppose it would be easy for my in-laws to argue about who should wash dishes. My father-in-law's work involves lots of mental and physical exertion. My mother-in-law keeps a big family going with all the countless jobs that entails. But I've never seen them have that argument, while I have so often seen my father-in-law off in the kitchen, rallying the kids to come dry dishes.

It strikes me as such a fine example of the servant-leadership Christ wants the men of his Church to exhibit. No "I'm the man, I work hard all day and deserve a rest," no "I'm the man so I'm the breadwinner and you do the housework." Nothing like that. Instead, it's "I'm the man, and we're both tired but God gave me a stronger body and I will take care of you by doing these dishes at the end of a hard day." So wonderful.

And I'm the indirect beneficiary because my husband does the same. I know he hates washing dishes, but now that I'm pregnant and thus bone-weary for most of the day, he rises to the occasion, using his strength to serve. It is such a blessing to me, and perfectly pictures the selfless way Christ serves his bride the Church.

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." 1 Peter 3:7, ESV