I finally understand what mansplaining is. I’ve never used this word before, and I’ve always thought it was kind of stupid. I have two sons (as well as two daughters), so I don’t support the idea that men’s opinions are any less valid than women’s are. I also don’t fear being confronted with ideas that are different than my own. However, I was part of a conversation that did not sit well with me recently, and I definitely felt “mansplained” to.
The subject was a cell phone policy that my daughter’s Scout troop is considering implementing. There is some disagreement within the leadership over whether the Scoutmaster should collect any cell phones that the girls may bring before they go into their tents for the night or whether they should just be told to keep them put away and not have them out in the tents.
I think that they should be collected. There is a rule forbidding them from having the phones in the bathrooms, and I feel that an area where children are changing clothes and sleeping is also a place where they are vulnerable and should have an expectation of privacy. Having a device in the tent with a camera and the ability to connect to the internet or to text photos puts the other girls in the tent at risk of having their privacy violated.
I expressed this, and another woman on the committee attempted to back me up, but we were shot down by a man with, “Well, the Scout oath and law covers this. We should trust the Scouts to obey the oath and law, and if they are, there shouldn’t be any problems with the phones. If a problem arises, then we’ll deal with it.” This was quickly followed up by another man agreeing with him, and the topic was dropped.
For reference, the Scout oath is:
“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
The Scout law is:
“A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.”
Here’s the thing, though – as men, whose experience is in running troops of boys, do they really comprehend how much trauma could ensue if one of the female Scouts chooses not to obey the oath and law? I think those are great qualities to encourage in them and hold them accountable to, but we are not in the tents with them, able to oversee what is going on and they know it. Do we really believe that they will not give in to the temptation to pull their phones out on occasion, even if it is for an innocent reason?
i·de·al·ism
noun
- The practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically.
All I could think to say while the conversation was occurring was that these guys were coming from an idealistic and naïve perspective, which of course, I didn’t think would go over well.
Having been a victim of abuse while I was growing up, I just don’t have the luxury to be that idealistic myself. Unfortunately, I know what people are capable of. I’d love to live in a bubble where I was unaware of such things, but I can’t. All it takes is ONE TIME for a girl to decide to take a compromising photo of another girl changing as a means to bully them, upload it to the internet, or just text it to someone else, who decides to upload it. You can’t get that photo back once that happens. There are people who literally spend years trying to get photos of themselves taken down from pornography sites that were uploaded without their permission, usually unsuccessfully. Is wanting the Scouts to think you trust them to uphold the oath and law worth potentially putting a Scout in that situation?
When my oldest son attended our local high school, he was put in the uncomfortable position of informing his best friend that the boys at school were texting each other a naked picture of his friend’s girlfriend. She’d apparently sent it to one of the boys, and this boy decided to share it with everyone else. Once that photo leaves the hands of the one who sent it, they have no control over where it ends up.
However, life experience isn’t the only factor that can result in a different perspective, but also being a woman versus a man. Many years ago, a friend of mine from church pointed out to me that the English translation of Genesis 2:18, when God creates Eve, misses some of the meaning of the original Hebrew:
“And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
The way that he explained it to me was that in the original language, the word that we have translated as “helper, helpmeet or helpmate” has a stronger meaning. Rather than an assistant, it has a connotation of a protector, someone who sees a danger coming that the man does not see and points it out to him. In “Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women,” Dr. Walter Kaiser points out:
But R. David Freedman has argued quite convincingly that our Hebrew Word ‘ēzer is a combination of two older Hebrew/Canaanite roots, one ‘-z-r, meaning “to rescue, to save,” and the other, ģ-z-r, meaning “to be strong,” to use their verbal forms for the moment. Therefore, I believe it is best to translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make [the woman] a power [or strength] corresponding to the man”.
Finally, woman was never meant to be a “helpmate”, no matter which force is given to this word ‘ēzer. The Old English “meet” or “suitable to” slipped to a new English word, “mate”. But what God had intended was to make her a “power” or “strength,” who would in every respect “correspond to” the man, that is to be “his equal”.
My perspective on the situation is no less valid than a man’s; I just see a different side of things. If I seem overprotective or anxious, it could be because I perceive a danger that they are missing.
le·gal·ism
noun
- Excessive adherence to law or formula.
As a result of being in the church for so long, I have been exposed at times to people with a legalistic way of thinking. It’s not just religious people, though. The secular world has plenty of legalism in it, too! In Christianity, legalism is when someone creates a set of rules for behavior for themselves that the Bible does not prescribe and depends on that to avoid sinning and provide for their salvation (for example, not drinking alcohol, not celebrating certain holidays, dressing a certain way). What truly makes it legalistic, though, is when they judge other people for not following their man-made rules.
I personally think that there is a parallel between idealism and legalism. You think that you are going to save yourself and others by following laws and formulas in accordance with your ideals, but no laws or formulas ever stopped humankind from making mistakes. We have free will, as do others, and it comes with the territory. As born sinners, we all fall short at times. If we don’t admit that to ourselves, we are bound to be let down by others when they don’t live up to the expectations we have set, or to let ourselves and others down in the same way.
As a leader who is often present on campouts, I feel partly responsible for the girls. I want them to learn and have fun, but I also want to send them home to their parents unharmed. If putting a safeguard in place (like collecting all of the cell phones before we retire to our tents for the night) will help ensure that, then that’s what I will advocate for. I’ll be the squeaky wheel, if necessary, because I trust that God designed me with that insight for a purpose, not just to be mansplained to.
Musings from My Garden 