Monday, April 23, 2018

Maidens of Virtue: Chapter 18

I'm sorry that I have to review this chapter.  As with many chapters in "Raising Maidens of Virtue" by Stacy McDonald, the material in this chapter is simply gross.  There's nothing particularly graphic in this section, but I do need to have a frank discussion about sexual assault within the context of military and warfare.   If this is going to bring up painful memories, please skip this post.

Thankfully, this chapter is blessedly short and I've only got three quotes to discuss.  The first quote is standard gender stereotyping:

Every little girl dreams of being a princess- especially one who is rescued by daring and valiant prince! Something in the female design relishes the thought of being cherished and protected by a man- first by her father and later by her beloved husband. This is evident in the way a daughter's eyes light up when Daddy says she's pretty and the way a young bride's heart skips a beat because her enamored husband fawns over her, insisting on carrying the " heavy things" - the same heavy things she managed to carry just fine before they met. It is in the face of an older woman who smiles at a young man who opens the door for her- a disappearing practice. (pg. 163)


I never wanted to be a princess.  The average princess of fairy tale lore has a miserable life.  She's orphaned, dealing with an abusive step-parent, kept in total isolation, and pretty much waits around for a guy to rescue her.   Additionally, princesses wore floofy dresses and heels.  For someone with minor mobilities issues as a child, the idea of trying to walk on stilts with material underfoot was terrifying.

No, I wanted to be an explorer.  I wanted to go to new places and create maps for other people to follow.  As I got older, I realized my courage wasn't equal to the risks of exploration - but I could lead students to new places as a teacher (even if the journey was a bit metaphorical).

As a child, I appreciated the fact that both of my parents loved me and protected me.  I also liked the idea of getting married and raising kids some day in the future.   I don't think I ever really thought of my husband as a protecting force.  My husband generally carries items that are too large, bulky or heavy for me to deal with - but he doesn't make a big deal about it.  I suspect the reason he doesn't preen about his ability to carry in the bags of water softener salt is that he grew up on a farm and knows he's strong.  Likewise, I did giggle appreciatively (and still do occasionally) when he moves something that seems insane to me like his ability to scoop up a 100 pound wiggly damp newborn calf and carry it across the barn.    That always blows my mind - but he points out that he's got much longer arms than I do so he can essentially bear-hug the calf.  My arms don't overlap so I often lose my grip on the calf.   The biggest difference between the newly married groom and my husband is that my husband pitches in as a matter of basic courtesy.  Yeah, he carried water out to the chickens when I was on a weight lifting restriction while pregnant with Jack - and he'd do that for anyone else who needed help.   It wasn't about flaunting his strength; it was about getting the job done effectively.

I generally cared for my son's NG tube including placing and taping the tube.  My husband was quite capable of doing it, but years of crafting, sewing and mass-batch canning has honed my fine motor skills so I could do more quickly and more confidently.   Honestly, placing the NG tube through his nose into his stomach involved a hand-motion very similar to threading a sewing machine needle and I had an easier time feeding the tube down until it was in Jack's stomach.

Cry me a river about disappearing social customs.  *rolls eyes*  The custom hasn't disappeared; it's just adapted.  The main rule now is the person who gets to the door first holds it open for anyone who is passing nearby.  The only exception is that someone who is unencumbered holds the door for people who might have issues opening the door.  Believe you me - I give a grateful smile and "Thank you!" to anyone who grabbed the door when I was carrying my son or dealing with a recalcitrant stroller or had two bags of chicken feed in my arms.

It is no longer unusual for a mother to allow virtual strangers to feed, nurture, and trade her infant while she heads her off to a self-promoting career. Sometimes the father is left home to tend the little ones and applauded for becoming a " Mr. Mom".  Roles are reversed, and everyone cheers.

In our day, young maidens even have the "right" to go to battle to protect and die for perfectly strong and able grown men who choose not to serve their country - or in some cases, not even working an honest job. Young maidens are given equal opportunity to crouch in muddy ditches, shoulder to shoulder, sweating and bleeding alongside " fellow" soldiers in combat. Equal opportunity might just end if she finds herself captured by the enemy, but we're not supposed to think about that. (pg. 165)

Good God, Stacy.  NO ONE leaves their baby with virtual strangers.   When people leave their children with caregivers - either in a daycare center, a home-based center, a relative or medical professionals - the parents get to know the caregivers dearly.  We never picked a primary nurse for Jack - mainly because his nurses were so awesome that we didn't want to exclude anyone - but we got to know the main 10-15 nurses who worked with him very, very well.  The nurses got to know us well, too.  I became the local "no, your teenager is behaving totally normally for a ____ year old" comforter while my husband was known for having great random explanations of how our son was like or unlike a newborn cow.

Yes, men have become much more involved in the lives of their children in the last 50 years - and everyone outside of CP/QF thinks that's a good thing.  I've been so glad that my husband has been directly involved in caring for my son.  I'm sure that it's good for my son - but I know my husband cherishes his time with our son.

Many conservative Christians revere the US military - and yet are completely oblivious to the actual realities of the military.   Currently, the US military is run entirely by volunteers; we don't have an active draft.  This means her yammering about unemployed young men not being in the army is completely pointless.  During both editions of this book, women were excluded from most combat roles in the military.   Mrs. McDonald did somehow realize a truth that many people have pointed out: the 15% of active military members who are women do end up in combat zones and are at risk.  What Mrs. McDonald misses, though, is that there is nothing new about women being present in combat zones.  Wars do not happen in unoccupied deserts or on mountain tops above human habitation.  Wars happen in agricultural fields, in towns, in villages and in cities.   Throughout history, women have followed armies as support workers of all stripes.   Since nursing became a profession, women have been in field hospitals to care for the wounded.  Having military women at risk of death or injury is not new.

Bluntly, only in the US have CP/QF women been cossetted enough to assume that the main way that women end up in danger during war is as soldiers. Most women who are harmed during war are local women who were simply trying to work and raise their families prior to the war - and who are still doing so in terrible conditions.

One of the horrible things about war is the history of sexual abuse of soldiers by captors and by comrades.  Now, Mrs. McDonald cattily reminds us that women are at high risk of being raped if captured during war.   Her off-hand bitchiness about rape is horrifying enough - but she also shows herself to be completely oblivious to the risks of sexual assault for men in the military.  The long-term physical and psychological issues for male victims of rape have been ignored for far too long.  A good first step was recently accomplished when a law was passed that allows veterans to access VA psychological support for sexual assault after leaving active duty so that members of the National Guard and retired service members can get badly needed supports.

Just like Grandma used to say, "If you act like a lady, you'll be treated like one." Likewise, if you act like a harlot, you can be certain there will be those who are more than willing to treat you like one. Furthermore, if you act like a man, you just may get what you ask for.

We do live in a fallen world, and many sweet young maidens have, in fact, been treated like harlots through no fault of their own. Similarly, many harlots who do not deserve honor have been treated with great respect bye well trained Christian gentleman, but the general principle still applies you will most likely be treated according to how you present yourself. (pg. 165-166)

Jesus.   Mrs. McDonald is gross.  Just....gross.

I don't remember either of my grandmothers saying the "if you act like a lady" spiel - but if they did, they only meant it in that case.  If you expect people to treat you with respect, most will.  My family feels that a more important example of this would be "If you treat people with respect, you will be treated with respect."  Stacy McDonald doesn't believe that all people are worth of respect.  Apparently women who are classed as "harlots" are no longer worthy of respect.   My family believes all people are worthy of respect.  We do that because we follow Jesus who was pretty straightforward in his beliefs that all people are worthy of basic respect. 

Stacy McDonald needs to read the Bible more.

14 comments:

  1. So, if a woman is deemed a "harlot" she doesn't deserve to be treated like a human being? Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the reason I think CP/QF adherents should be referred to as Overly Legalistic Old Testament and Pauline Epistle followers. They really are not very good at following the views espoused by Jesus (or most of the Bible).

      Delete
    2. Except the gender politics of most of us "Old Testament" folks (that would be Jews...) are light years ahead of these people. It's all about how you interpret and these people interpret whatever they're reading to fit their misogynist agenda.

      Delete
    3. I mentally included the vast majority of Jewish people and the vast majority of Christians in the "normal level" legalistic - but I can see where I was unclear about that.

      As a Catholic, "Overly legalistic" is used as a slam against Catholics all_the_time by various fundamentalist evangelical Christians.

      I was trying to express how CP/QF folk interpret the Bible. They go crazy literal on chunks of the Old Testament, skip the entirety of the Gospels and double-down on selected Epistles. They've created their own religion that neatly removes God, Jesus, and any requirement to do good....

      Delete
  2. Let me get this straight. If you act like a man, you get treated like one? Wonderful! No more glass ceilings! O, unless you get taken prisoner while acting like a man during wartime, then you get treated the way this woman thinks peacetime harlots ought to be treated. Hm... I can´t quite put my finger on it, but there seems to be a tiny little disconnect there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. Women can act like men - and the problem is that they will be treated like men...except when they aren't treated like men.

      The gaping holes in the logic are weakly covered by indignation and misplaced horror.

      Delete
  3. Pretty sure Jesus treated prostitutes better than the self-righteous religious elite of his day . . .

    Now that I'm older I want to be a princess. Like the Wonder Woman type of princess. Taking down the patriarchy and loving everyone regardless of how much they deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah I can't remember wanting to be a princess either. Clothes that made swooshing sounds made me feel self-concious when I walked (maybe because I idolized my brother and I noticed he never wore swooshing clothes). Also having bows on my person made (and still does) me feel like I'm a present.
    I'm not sure which paragraph it was that Mrs. McDonald was insinuating rape is what a woman soldier should expect (because I guess either of the last 2 could be construed that way). All I have to say about that is... does she think anyone, ever DESERVES rape? It seems like she thinks it's acceptable in some cases or with some people.
    And if it's all about "act like a lady" thing, then what about sweet old ladies or nuns that are brutalized during war?
    This woman is a horrible human being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't read it that women soldiers deserved to be raped.

      I read it as "rape of women soldiers is a given in war zones and female soldiers are blatantly ignoring that."
      I'm not sure that the way I read it is much better than the first, though. First, rape is never a given in any circumstance. It's always a crime about demonstrating power over another person. Second, I've never met a female soldier who was unaware of the risks of being raped by an enemy combatant.

      I think Stacy McDonald lives in fear. The fear that comes when a person cannot conceptualize that their life is one blink away from being completely turned upside down and inside out - and that they would still survive and move on. She strikes me as the kind of person who when my son was in the NICU or at home with lots of medical equipment would blurt out "Oh, I could never deal with that! I don't know how you cope. You're so strong." She whistles in the dark because she's still afraid of the unknown.

      Delete
  5. I did love playing princess make-believe when I was a kid. I also loved playing wilderness survival make-believe--that totally fascinated me. What do you get when you combine the two? Me and my friends playing "Princesses lost in the wilderness" games where we got to wear floofy dresses from the dress-up box AND use our pretend hardcore survival skills! (Because children's pretend-play doesn't have to make sense. A princess to me at that age was just a lady who got to wear pretty clothes, which I liked, and which I didn't see as being at odds with being a badass.) Often our world-building involved being in exile or on the run from some Bad Guys, so we'd been driven into the woods or the mountains and had to think of a Plan. We were going to save ourselves though. Valiant princes never entered into the picture. I don't think that kind of thing is naturally much on the minds of prepubescent girls, unless they've had it hammered into them that the only fantasies they're allowed have to be about marriage and heterosexuality. Boys did not interest me or my friends in that way when we were 7, obviously. Princes were usually the most boring part of Disney movies. Why outsource the adventures to imaginary men when we could have them ourselves in our child make-believe world?

    People like McDonald think that you can either be wholly into hyperfeminine things, or wholly into wanting to be "be like men" but nothing in between. In the real world, I think most children combine different interests and proclivities (like my "Aragorn in a dress" pretend games), at least until meddling adults shame that out of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Aragorn in a dress" sounds like an amazing childhood!

      Delete
  6. Also...

    "Furthermore, if you act like a man, you just may get what you ask for."

    Equal pay? Better healthcare? Wow, and all we have to do is wear pants and carry heavy things? Excuse me, I have a dresser to move.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd take all of those - but sadly, this is Stacy McDonald talking.

      Her threat means things like a married woman working outside the home, having a spouse who shares household chores and child rearing work or a single young woman having a career.

      It's like she's stuck in the Victorian era as a rich, white woman.

      Delete