“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
in those days, I will pour out my Spirit.” – Joel 2:28

The outpouring of the spirit of God in the last days, as prophesied by Joel, is not limited to men. Two times in this very prophecy Joel tells us that both men and women will experience this. All flesh means all flesh. Does this in any way mean that until this prophecy women were not able to prophesy in scripture? Certainly not. The bible is replete with examples of women operating in the prophetic ministry from the Old Testament even to the new. In this particular write-up, I will talk a lot about women in both the Old and New Testaments who instructed men, prophesied and operated in any of the 5-fold ministries.

In the Old Testament, we see quite a number of prophetesses, amongst them are Prophetess Miriam, Huldah, Deborah and Isaiah’s wife. Deborah was not only a prophetess, she was also a Judge. In the Old Testament, before Israel had kings, judges were ordained by God himself to lead his people. Gideon and Sampson were judges too. Deborah was so influential during her time as a judge that Barak refused to go to war if Deborah wouldn’t go with the army. The story of Deborah is proof that God himself can raise a woman to lead his people. The reason why this point had to be made is that in Paul’s instruction to Timothy, he made reference to an Old Testament reality as the reason why he, under the inspiration of God, prohibits women from having authority and instructing men in the church. The reason he gave was that Eve sinned first, therefore women are to learn in humility and not allowed to exercise authority over men. How is it that Deborah who was in the Old Testament wasn’t affected by this (if we insist that the apostle’s instructions meant women should never exercise authority over men anywhere in the body of Christ)? If indeed Paul meant that because of events that took place in the garden a woman cannot exercise spiritual authority over a man in the church, how is this instruction only being enforced in the New Testament when there were women like Deborah in the Old Testament who had both political and spiritual authority over the whole of Israel?

All these prophetesses mentioned above were in the Old Testament, the question is were there any prophetesses in the New Testament as well? The answer is a resounding YES! Before Jesus’ birth, we read of the 84-year-old prophetess Anna who fasted and prayed for the birth of Christ. Concerning the prophetess Anna, it is written that at the time Jesus was brought to the temple to be presented to the Lord, she walked into the temple and ‘began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem’ (Luke 2:38). The prophetess entered the temple and began to speak about God to all who were gathered there. We were not told that anybody shut her up for being a woman. All we know is that a prophetess entered the temple, started thanking God and telling all who were there about him. That could have been a sermon, you know?

Also, we are reliably informed in Acts 21 that Philip the evangelist had 4 daughters who prophesied. We weren’t told whether they were prophetesses or not, all we know is that they could prophesy. So yes, women can prophesy and can operate in the prophetic office as prophetesses. The fact that women can prophesy has never been under contention anyway. However, the point had to be made for the benefit of people who think Paul meant women should keep their mouths completely shut in the church. If that was the case, how are women supposed to prophesy in the church? Looking at the instructions Paul gave concerning how prophecy must be spoken in the church, he expected the entire congregation to be quiet while the person with the prophecy spoke. Therefore if a woman had a prophetic word for the church, that alone afforded her the opportunity to have everyone’s rapt attention while she spoke.

Can women instruct men in the word of God?

Well indeed they can and there is one example of such a woman in the New Testament. Her name is Priscilla. Paul himself stated that he traveled with Priscilla and her husband Aquila. In Romans 16 Paul also salutes the church in their house, meaning the couple had a thriving church in their home. It is recorded in Acts 18 that the couple came across a man who taught diligently the things of the Lord. However, this man, Apollos, didn’t know much as he only knew the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla took him unto themselves and ‘expounded unto him the ways of God more perfectly’ (Acts 18:26). Apollos’ ministry grew and he became very influential in Alexandria and it is remarkable to know that at some point in his ministry a woman helped him better understand the things of God. Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus. Indicating that Apollos definitely wasn’t their only student. If they had a church in their house, then they probably taught the word of God to a lot more people. We are admonished by the apostle in Colossians 3:16 to ‘let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom …’. Was this instruction gender-specific? Are men the only ones instructed to let the word dwell in them richly so they can admonish others?

Can a woman have genuine authority over a man in the church?

Again, from the writings of Paul, we can draw the conclusion that women can hold positions in the church. In Romans 16:1 Paul speaks about Phoebe who was a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae. She was a leader in the church and Paul was writing to the Romans to help her in any way they could especially if she asks for their assistance. Paul also made mention of Junia (or Junias in other translations) and stated that this person was highly respected amongst the apostles. Ken Bailey made the point that some scholars believe this person was a woman. According to him:

The word ‘Junia’ in this text was taken to be feminine by Origen of Alexandria, Jerome, Peter Abelard and others.  A Catholic scholar, Bernadette Brooten writes that she was unable to find any Latin commentary on the Book of Romans that has this name as masculine before the late 13^th century.

Some versions of the Bible spell the name as ‘Junias’ implying that this person was a man. Ken Bailey again says:

The difficulty with Stapulensis’s suggestion of ‘Junias’ is that the name Junias is unattested in any Latin or Greek text at any time in history.  The name Junia, however, has been found over 250 times.

Adoniram Judson also states in his essay ‘Women in Ministry’ that:

Yet Chrysostom, who, as a Greek Father, ought to be taken as a high authority, makes this frank and unequivocal comment on the passage; “How great the devotion of this woman is, that she should be counted worthy of the name of an apostle!”

From all that is stated above, it is possible that Junia was a woman and an apostle. This brings to mind another question, can women operate in any of the 5-fold ministries? Because it seems by stating that Junia was a woman then it implies that she was an apostle which is the first of the 5-fold ministries. Have we not already concluded that women can operate in the prophetic office? Are there specific instructions concerning the gender of people permitted to operate in each of the offices? .

It is clear that both men and women are instructed in the great commission to preach the word of God to all creation, the bone of contention, however, is whether women can operate in any of the ministerial offices. The reason is that, by operating in any of these offices, they would definitely exercise authority over men and instruct them in one way or the other hence some Christian denominations are against the ordination of women into any of these ministries. When Paul spoke about the 5-fold ministries he said nothing about the gender of the persons operating in them. Neither did Jesus say anything about the gender of the Christian who is supposed to go into the world and preach the gospel. Some people who believe that women cannot operate in any or some of the offices have no problem with women carrying out the great commission. They do this forgetting that as part of the great commission, we are expected to preach and MAKE DISCIPLES. Making disciples requires authority. One has to exert a certain level of spiritual authority over people he/she is leading. How can a woman make disciples of men without having authority over them?

In Romans 16 Paul makes mention of a number of women who have served the Lord in different capacities. Some I have mentioned above. Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis are also mentioned in the same chapter and saluted by the apostle because of their work in the Lord. Also in Philippians 4, we see the Apostle mention the names of two other women, Euodia and Syntyche. He claims they labored with him in the gospel. Had he just said they labored with him, then we could come to the conclusion that they probably labored in different capacities other than direct ministry work of sharing the gospel. But the apostle stated that they labored with him in the gospel together with other laborers whose names are in the book of life. This is a bold reference to direct ministry work. It is very interesting to know that women played a major role in the ministry of Paul as they did in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus had women amongst his disciples too. In Luke 8 we are told that these women who followed Jesus supported his ministry financially from their own purses.

We can also see how Jesus made messengers out of women in his ministry. Firstly, he turned the whole city of Samaria upside down with the woman at the well. This was somebody who was probably despised because of her lifestyle yet Jesus managed to use her to draw the whole city to himself. Does he still use women as evangelists, send them into cities and use them to draw men to himself? Secondly, at the resurrection, we would expect that Jesus would reveal himself to his disciples first. I don’t see it as a mere coincidence for him to appear to the women first. He was literally walking through walls when he resurrected, so he could have just walked into the room where his disciples were hiding. However, he permitted the women to be the first witnesses of his resurrected body. Thereby making them the first messengers of the gospel of the resurrected Christ. Ravi Zacharias said that ‘all of Easter hangs on the testimony of a woman’ and it is true. Jesus did this in a time when a woman’s testimony meant nothing in court. If indeed the created order and Eve sinning first is the reason why women are not allowed to teach men and exercise spiritual authority over them, why did Jesus literally bypass his disciples to reveal his resurrected body to women first?

Very few things about the Christian faith have been contested by skeptics and secular historians than the resurrection of Christ. The Christian faith hangs on the resurrection of Jesus from the grave. This is why Paul said ‘and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain’ (1^st Corinthians 15:14). Jesus went against the created order and the fact that Eve sinned first and revealed himself to women thereby placing the gospel of the resurrected savior in their mouths first. If women were the first to proclaim the message of the resurrected savior, is there any other message in the bible they are not allowed to preach to men?

References:

Ken Bailey – “Women in Ministry – Woodstock Q and A”

Adoniram Judson  – “Women in Ministry”

Hugenberger – “Women in ministry”

Kaiser – “Women in Ministry, commentary on the text”

However, ‘women in ministry’ has always been a controversial subject that has divided the body of Christ to an extent. There are denominations that believe women are not allowed to stand in the pulpit to instruct men publicly. Others see no problem with that. I don’t seek to merely take sides (although my opening paragraph gives my position away). What I seek to do with this write-up is to point out what God’s word says on the matter and I hope I do just that and not let my personal opinions and preferences cloud my judgment.

First of all, this problem arose from the misinterpretation of some portions of the New Testament – specifically the writings of Paul. In two separate passages found in two of his epistles, Paul admonishes the recipients of his letter to make sure the women in the church keep quiet and learn in submission. These two passages can be found in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Due to the instructions, Paul gave in these two passages, some believe that it isn’t scripturally correct for a woman to pastor a church. Before I proceed, I’d like to clarify a few things. The controversy is not necessarily about the prohibition of women from sharing the gospel with people – as that would have been an outright contradiction of the great commission Jesus gave to believers. I believe what is in contention here is whether women should be allowed to pastor a church thereby instructing men in scripture and exercising authority over them.

I will start with the easier of the two texts, 1^st Corinthians 14:33-36. In this passage, Paul states emphatically that women are not permitted to speak in church and that if they would want to learn anything they should ask their husbands at home. The second part of this instruction gives us a hint of the context of the events Paul was addressing. However, this isn’t clear to all so we would still have to delve deeper into the issue. So Paul prohibits women from speaking in church. How can we convince people that the gospel of grace is one built on the foundation of love if there is a verse that seeks to suggest that women as a sexually-defined group of people are not allowed to speak in the church simply because they are women? It is hard to reconcile this notion with the ethos of the New Testament. We don’t need to go far, let’s stay in the book of 1^st Corinthians. In the 11^th chapter of the same book, Paul admonishes women to pray and prophesy with their heads covered. Throughout the book of 1^st Corinthians, we see the apostle speak elaborately on the gifts of the spirit and how they should be administered in the church. The gift of prophecy being one of the most prominent of all the gifts was duly addressed by Paul. He stated that when one person is prophesying, there should be total silence in the church. Since it is already an established fact that women can prophesy in church just like their male counterparts, doesn’t this tell us that they are at liberty to speak in church?

Indeed women are permitted to speak in the church to the hearing of everyone. This doesn’t in any way render Paul’s instructions for women to keep quiet in the church void. What we should be asking ourselves is, what kind of ‘quiet’ was the apostle referring to? Analyzing the text soundly would reveal that the apostle gave the instructions amongst several other instructions that would promote orderliness in church. Hence it is safe to say that he instructed women to be quiet in the instance when their talking was distracting the flow of the church service. It is believed that during service some of the women were fond of asking their husbands questions, seeking further clarifications of what was being taught. Hence the apostle’s instruction that they should ask their husbands at home if they didn’t understand what was being taught. The same Paul who said women should prophesy with their heads covered couldn’t have said in the same book that they are not permitted to prophesy (or speak publicly) in the church. In his essay on ‘Women in Ministry’, Adoniram Judson states that ‘So it seems, at least, for this word “prophesy” in the New Testament “signifies not merely to foretell future events, but to communicate religious truth in general under a Divine inspiration” (vide Hackett on “Acts”, p.49)’. This tells us that women are very much allowed to instruct men in scripture – I will delve into this a little more later on.

The second passage that causes confusion about women in ministry is in 1^st Timothy 2. This is a far more difficult text because it introduces some historical events as the basis of the instructions given by the apostle. Here again, Paul instructs that women should not be allowed to teach nor usurp authority over men. Let’s look at the context in which he makes this statement. So Timothy was head of the church in Ephesus that is why this letter was being addressed to him. If you know anything about the ancient city of Ephesus, you would know that it was a city that was wholly given to idolatry. Specifically the worship of the goddess Artemis. The temple of Artemis was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world. It is an edifice that took 120 years to build. The temple was supported by 127 columns, each being 65 feet high (roughly 7 stories). Inside the building stood the huge multiple-breasted statue of the goddess. The servants (temple functionaries) of Artemis were mostly women. The men who were allowed to serve in the temple had to be castrated first – basically stripped of their manhood. This gives a bit of a background to the text under consideration. Some of these women had been converted and brought into the church. They were exposed to a system of worship where women exercised undue authority over men. It is believed that it was this particular problem that the apostle sought to address when he said I do not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man. It is worthy of note however that the apostle began this particular passage by stating that ‘let the women LEARN in silence and with all subjection’ (v11). This indicates that he wasn’t against female education and that is very important to this topic. It may appear trivial to us today but we need to understand that in those days women were not allowed to study the word of God. Kenneth Bailey mentions that:

Judith Hauptmann, in her essay on “Images of Women in the Talmud,” notes Rabbi Eliezer’s view that it is better to burn the words of the Torah than to give them to women.

With the passage in 1Timothy 2, the main problem is the fact that Paul makes reference to historical data as the basis for his instructions. He states that the reason he prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men is that in the garden, it was the woman that was deceived and not the man. This is interesting. So our quest is to find out why the woman was first deceived and not the man in the garden. Now it was Eve who was deceived first. That is to say that Adam was deceived as well so let’s not get ahead of ourselves and assume that there is a device preinstalled in men that prevents them from falling prey to deception. As a matter of fact in the book of 2Timothy Paul states categorically that there were some men teaching false doctrines, entering into homes of women who were burdened by the guilt of their own sins hence these women fell for their lies (2 Timothy 3:6). We can see that all the Apostle is advocating for is the teaching of sound doctrine. This cannot happen when the one being taught is exhibiting a haughty attitude towards the teacher. That is why he admonishes women to learn in quietness and not usurp authority over their teachers – who were men. This looks very much like the event in the garden where a woman was instructed by her husband and it was her who FIRST sinned. Was Paul admonishing all women to submit to the authority of all men? I doubt that, that is an instruction meant for married people. Paul was admonishing the women in the church to submit to sound teaching by being silent while they learn and not fall prey to deception like Eve did. 2Timothy 3 actually proves that they had already started falling for the lies of heretic male teachers in the city.

The last verse of this chapter talks about women being saved in childbearing. This is a tough one too. If you are familiar with the writings of Paul, you would know that he was vehemently opposed to any teaching that suggested that anybody could be saved in another way other than confessing Jesus. So definitely, he wasn’t saying here that women will obtain salvation in the Lord through childbirth. The word translated as ‘saved’ is ‘sozo’ – which can also mean ‘prosper’, ‘to be in good health’, ‘blessed’ etc. Therefore, we can understand that portion of scripture as Paul saying women shall prosper in childbearing. Why would he say that? Because it is believed there was a false doctrine going around intending to prohibit women from having children or even getting married. Again, we see the apostle address doctrinal issues here.

This is the end of part one of this short series. Do look out for the continuation in the next blog post. Remember to make your contributions and ask your questions in the comment section below.

References:

Ken Bailey – “Women in Ministry – Woodstock Q and A”

Adoniram Judson – “Women in Ministry”

Hugenberger – “Women in ministry”

Kaiser – “Women in Ministry, commentary on text”

This is clearly not worthy of celebration. In fact, I was appalled at this fact when I read it. Those were 60 million lives that could have been but weren’t given the chance. For various reasons women commit abortions. All kinds of women take this decision: married, single, rich, poor, abused etc. I am not outraged at them, but rather the system that allowed this. I am not quite keen on acquiring a tag but if this viewpoint makes me pro-life, then so be it. One thing I know is that nobody can be more pro-life than the fetus. Within a period of 9 months, what started as a clot of blood develops limbs and transforms rapidly into a full-blown human being in the womb. That is pro-life. Nothing can be more indicative of a pro-life stance than growth. Absolutely nothing. Always remember that humanity loses a pro-lifer after each successful abortion.

But it is an issue of choice, they say. It is an issue of what the bearer of the baby says. I’m really not here to debate that, but I just wanted to point out a few things I noticed from the ongoing discussion on social media. From what I know about abortions, especially the ones I have heard about, it was the guys who forced the idea on the ladies. In Lecrae’s song ‘The Good, The Bad, the Ugly’ he recounts how he forced his woman to get an abortion when he was much younger. He stated in the song that the lady went on with the plan because she loved him. But from all indications, he regrets that decision. I remember hearing a story about this macho man in the neighborhood I grew up in running after a lady with a glass of water and some pills in broad daylight. He was literally forcing her to terminate the pregnancy in the full glare of everybody around.

All lives matter; those in womb matter too. The life of a fetus matters no matter who takes the final decision to end it.

My main concern is the misrepresentation of the word of God in the ensuing debate. I couldn’t help but cringe at some opinions which were expressed based on faulty analyses of scripture. Two bible stories emerged in most of the discussions:

1. Onan spilling his seeds (withdrawing while having sex with Tamar)
2. God declaring that he knew Jeremiah before he formed him in his mother’s womb.

Onan’s story is quite an interesting one. He was the second son of Judah. His older brother Er was married to Tamar and he displeased the Lord so he was killed. As their custom was, Tamar was given to Onan to sleep with for her to bear a child to continue the lineage of Er. Onan knowing that the child wouldn’t be counted as his, chose to spill his seed. God killed Onan for what he did. NOTE: God didn’t kill him for merely spilling his seed, but for the implications of this act. Many times I’ve heard people use this story as the basis to condemn masturbation. Masturbation is indeed sexual sin but Onan didn’t masturbate. What he did was a deliberate act to discontinue his brother’s lineage. It is also worthy for us to note that this is the same Judah whose lineage became the tribe of Judah. Both David and Jesus came from this tribe. It is easy to tell why God had a keen interest in the affairs of this family. I can’t tell the exact reason but I am tempted to believe God’s decision to kill Onan had a lot to do with the implications of his actions on the tribe of Judah (According to Gen 38:9).

It is not right to liken what Onan did to masturbation or even abortion. A sperm is not a fetus. Therefore whatever means of birth control a man applies to prevent conception cannot be likened to abortion. Why? Because conception has not taken place yet. The male body is fashioned to naturally dispose of semen once in a while in the sleep of the said man. Is this abortion too? Does this apply to menstruation too? I get what this is all about, though. It is all because some ladies are of the view that any man who takes a stance against abortion is primarily attempting to take away a certain level of freedom from women. Also, there is this assertion that a man’s opinion is worth very little on the topic of abortion. Are we implying that one can only have an opinion on a topic when it directly affects him/her? Do we need to strip the proponent of a contrary view of his right to express it? Doesn’t that imply our assertions are weak in the face of opposition? Nobody’s view should be discredited because of his gender. That is sexism indeed.

The other bible story that has come up in this discussion is the story of Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah:

‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth of the womb I sanctified thee and, I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations’

Many have misinterpreted this because they have either misquoted the verse or have truncated it to suit their interpretation. God didn’t say ‘before you were formed in the belly…’ but ‘before I FORMED THEE in the belly…’. What difference does that make? A lot! The understanding that this verse implies God knows each sperm by name and therefore when a man ‘spills his seed’ he has committed abortion is false. God formed Jeremiah in his mother’s womb. God didn’t just know him before that, he ordained Jeremiah way before he formed him in the womb. This means, that verse up there is not about identity or identification but rather predestination. The verse doesn’t mean God knows each sperm by name. It means God knows which one would eventually fertilize the egg and in this case, it was Jeremiah. So before he was a clot of blood, God had already ordained him to be a prophet unto the nations. As simple as that. Therefore abortion is the termination of that which God has formed. As Ravi Zacharias said ‘We can’t talk about human rights without the right to be human’. If your human right terminates another person’s right to be human, how many humans will be left if everybody exercised that right?

There are so many push factors when it comes to abortion for eg. Poverty, stigmatization, unpreparedness etc. It is my hope that we wouldn’t lose sight of the real issue as we go on to fight these factors. Also, there should be counseling and therapy available for women who have already committed abortions. The trauma they go through is unmatched and therefore special care must be given to their psychological health.

We are all fallible. It is natural to want to deal with your mistakes lest they interrupt your plans for the future or because you can’t afford to live with the consequences. But is it right to end a life so you can live yours comfortably? I believe as many of us that read this post should try and answer this question and please share your views with me in the comment session. Thanks.

The family is the oldest human institution and also the seed from which every other institution sprouts. This makes the family a very important body in the society. Among the things that make any institution thrive, the following are paramount: love, respect, hard work, understanding and role-playing. The last of which is my focus in this post.

In a typical Ghanaian home a 100 or more years ago, the father was probably a hunter, the mother was a stay-home mum and the children assist the parent of their gender. It makes perfect sense, if you ask me. In those days, the duties of wives were mainly to provide food, clean, sweep, nurture the children etc. because they were usually not involved in any economic venture. Husbands did all the work to make the family financially sound. Once again, I will say that this makes perfect sense. But times have changed. Women are actively involved in economic ventures now and are raking huge sums of money every month; sometimes even more than their husbands. A husband who is the CEO of a multinational company could be married to a woman who is a medical doctor by profession. The question is, does it mean the duties of wives at home need to be revised?

I believe the roles of both husband and wife should be revised. I know in Marriage Counselling men are advised to lend a helping hand with chores at home. I lean more towards this assertion. I have heard men with my own two ears state emphatically that they will do no such thing. It is like they can’t imagine themselves in the kitchen, whipping up something for the entire family. This brings me to the focus of this post: what exactly do wives expect their husbands to do at home? Women weren’t born with cooking and cleaning genes, men weren’t born with working genes either. This is even more evident in the way women have swarmed the corporate world in the last few decades. There is still much room for improvement though. Back to the question, what do wives expect their husbands to do at home? For most men, it isn’t the idea of doing something around the house that they find repulsive, but the fact that it has to  – of a necessity – be cooking and cleaning.

Socialization is society’s way of programming human beings for life. It is hard to change roles when you were made to think that you are hard-wired to do just that. Nevertheless, it is possible.

A lot of people are of the view that cooking and cleaning are the only chores in every home. This is so wrong! If it takes only cooking and cleaning to maintain the sanity, safety and well-being of family members then I dare say we have belittled what it means to be parents. I don’t ever remember seeing my dad in the kitchen cooking. Does that make him a lazy man who overburdened his wife and kids to work like donkeys? Before you pass any judgment, let me tell you a little story. In the community I grew up in, my dad was arguably one of the most hardworking men around. Not in terms of his job, but chores. You wouldn’t expect a Pharmacist with a very busy schedule as his to do the stuff he did. I grew up in Koforidua and my dad had a garden in front of the house and a farm behind the boys’ quarters. Oh yeh, he put the ‘farmer’ in Pharmacist. He planted maize and cassava. I didn’t quite get it at the time though, but lessons in Agricultural Science in Junior High School revealed that that system of farming was called Mixed Cropping. I was the type of child to throw baby tantrums anytime I was given work to do. That demon has long left me; it was beaten and caned out of me *insert your Amens here*. But one chore that my brother and I couldn’t wait to do was breaking off withered corn stalks after the harvest. We would do this every time in a faux action scene of one of the Chinese movies we used to watch. Kicking and punching at the sinister accomplices of the most evil antagonist standing before us as withered corn stalks. It was fun. Now, that was Koforidua and having a farm at the back of your house was a common practice. When we moved to Tema, guess what the old man did… he made another farm. This time, a smaller one because the soil was sandy and our backyard was smaller. My dad initiated all general cleanings at home. He was brutal towards any of us who appeared reluctant to participate in it. My question is, does such a husband still have to actively work in the kitchen to prove himself a hard-working fellow? Is the kitchen the only place where there is work to be done in the home?

Chores are not gender-specific but honestly there are some chores that come more easy to  people of a particular gender. This is not because of our biological makeup – as some people would be irritated by this if it were so. It is simply by socialization: the way we were brought up. It is very cool and helpful on his part, if the husband cooks in the house. Per the way most of us were brought up, our female counterparts are better cooks than we are. So, which is the more reasonable approach, to get all men to start learning how to cook now or to have them actively involved in the things that require masculine strength at home? The latter is more reasonable. I don’t need to quote any literature to buttress the point that men are physically stronger than women. It is an observable fact. Hence, wouldn’t men be more suited to do the things that their strengths can afford them the luxury of doing? If we are to remove the demarcations and say that since no one is born with a specific gene to do some chores men and women should not specialize, that would wreak havoc in the family. I don’t know about other guys, but I know there is something about the picture of my wife washing her own car I find off. I can’t picture my wife ‘spidermanning’ her way up a ladder to the roof to fix the TV pole because she wants to watch her favorite telenovela. I can’t sit, with folded arms and watch the woman of my life sink a few nails into the spine of a broken door in her bid to fix it. Why should a husband allow his wife’s palms to blister away into hardness because she was weeding with a cutlass while he made supper in the kitchen?  If you didn’t cringe at any of these scenarios, then I must admit there is something wrong with me because I did… and ever so emphatically. It is not even a matter of which chore is demeaning, it is a matter of which one comes easy to whom.

When it comes to gender, I am not conclusive in my views as it is a very touchy subject and a controversial one. You could touch raw nerves by passing a loose comment about women these days – and rightly so. I just wish we would dialogue more and accept that marriage has some dynamics that don’t accommodate stiff rules that cannot be bent or turned to favor both parties every now and then. Plus, what works for one couple may cause a divorce in another. Hence, the two parties involved should sit and decide who does what in the home.  

These are just spiders anyway; hence they do not have to grapple with gender issues like humans. If this were to happen amongst humans, it would be a media sensation. Heads would roll and laws would spring up involuntarily from the depths of legal archives to put the perpetrators away for good. Maybe we would also start our own movement. We might just call it MALELISM: a movement for the brothers. But no, in the real world, it is the other way round. Women are being treated badly. Sometimes it is not even the actions against women that worry me the most, it is the sort of condescending opinions and prejudices people hold. Those really appall me because it means deeply seated within their hearts are these perceptions which will inform every action in their dealings with women. This gave rise to Feminism. A worthy cause; and like all worthy causes, it will not stand or be successful without the active participation of both sexes. I repeat, Feminism will not stand without the active participation of both sexes; because patriarchy wouldn’t have been this successful without the active involvement of both sexes. Over the years the image of the movement has been tainted. Most men would want to have nothing to do with it or to be associated with it. It may be due to several other reasons, but I believe that paramount amongst those reasons is the attitude of feminists. The belligerence and the venom in their speech totally deter men from participating in anything related to Feminism. How do you fight negativity with negativity?

Gender equality is a myth. I wonder why I never thought about it until recently. If this remains at the core of Feminism, I would like to state emphatically that it will end up empowering men rather than women. What is the yardstick that indicates equality with men; same number of men and women in parliament? To be a man is not that pleasant anyway so I wonder why equality with men seems to be deemed so highly. Women must fight for what is theirs. We have no idea what a fair society looks like: a fair society being one that gives what women deserve to them. We may never see it if the goal of our women is to have what we have as men and neglect what is due them. For all you know, what is due women could possibly outweigh that which society seems to have given to men. Society is made up of male and female members. I see society as a giant 2-pieced jig-saw puzzle. What people do not realize is that the call for Gender Equality is like shaping the edges of the two pieces of the puzzle the same way – making them identical pieces. That seems like a fair action, but it is highly unreasonable (that is, if piecing the pieces together is our motive). When you shape the edges the same way, they won’t fit. But this is what Gender Equality is seeking to achieve. How I wish women would understand their place and value. How I wish they would realize how blessed they are and embrace their uniqueness. Men and women are equal and different. The right and left arms belong to one individual but they are different because of their location. This is it. So for the left arm to start a movement to achieve equality with the right is rather absurd, because it is already an arm too. Nevertheless, if the left realizes that it is being treated badly, it has every right to speak out and with the assistance of the right hand justice will be served. I am not the only one who holds this assertion. The bible also makes it clear that women and men are both equal and different. In 1Peter 3:7, it says:

‘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…’

The verse above indicates the difference between men and women by the phrase ‘…the weaker vessel’. Simply put, compared to men, women are weaker (physically) and must be treated as such. The verse states the equality of both sexes by saying ‘… since they are heirs with you…’. Meaning, in the sight of God we are equal. Paul put it better when he said ‘in Christ there is neither MALE nor FEMALE’. From this we can infer that God looks down and sees a sexless humanity. No wait, God looks down and sees a sexless humanity, except that a section is advocating equality that is already glaring in the sight of God. Gender Equity (it might not make semantic sense) would rather be appropriate. Where we understand our sameness and uniqueness hence we give each person his or her due. Especially the basics of this life: choices, good education, health, respect, fair representation at gatherings etc.

We teach little girls to be better than their male counterparts. We hide this message in the cliché ‘what a man can do a woman do better’. It is unfortunate that there are people who hold this assertion. Who said being better than the men around you is equal to success? Right away we are implying that little girls would have to fight to do better than their male counterparts in order to feel fulfilled. What if she is surrounded by poor performing male counterparts? Does she attain success in life by merely being better than them? This is the height of insecurity. We should let little girls know that being good is good enough. They need not feel like they are in a competition with boys. We should let them know the only competition is their previous performance; hence they must move heaven and earth to beat that. We live in a right-handed society. Our aim is to make it ambidextrous. Ambidexterity will not be achieved by demeaning the right hand; it can only be achieved by empowering the left hand to be strong and improve. Right-handed people can get away with things like writing and eating but when it comes to bathing or cleaning themselves they cannot do it properly without the aid of the left hand. Similarly, when it comes to washing or ridding our society of irksome patriarchy, we need both hands to play a major role. How do these two come to work together in harmony when the left is hurling abusive words in the direction of the right?

I believe feminism is a worthy cause that men need to play an active role in. Gender Equality on the other hand stems from insecurity. There is no need to be equal when you are uniquely designed to fit together. Society is a giant 2-pieced jig-saw puzzle; society is supposed to be ambidextrous; one hand down-playing the importance of the other will do it no good.