Recovering Harmonious Gender Distinctions

A significant trend in our times is the blurring of gender distinctions between men and women in roles and clothing. Today our society no longer shouts "Vive la différence between men and women!" but rather "Vive la similarité!" In fact, the similarity between men's and women's jobs and clothes has become so great that sometimes it is difficult to tell where a woman ends and a man begins.

What is the philosophical driving force behind the unisex fashion and interchangeable roles and how do these impact upon the home, the workplace and the church? What should be our Adventist response to this trend? I have addressed these questions in the sixth chapter of my latest book, Christian Dress and Adornment. The comments below are excerpted from this chapter.

Genderless Society

The driving force behind the unisex fashion and interchangeable roles of our time is the feminist vision of a new genderless society. Feminists contend that men and women are essentially the same except for the perceived irreproducible organs. Other perceived differences are all said to be culturally induced. The reason little girls play with dolls and little boys with toy cars is not nature but nurture. To achieve a truly authentic humanity where women enjoy full equality with men, according to feminists, it is necessary to destroy sexual stereotypes, including gender distinctions in roles and clothing.

Feminists envision a new genderless society where the roles of men and women are undifferentiated and interchangeable. They see this utopian genderless society as imperative in order to achieve the liberation of women from their submissive role. "Although those who argue for unisex are few," according to Roland Martinson, "there are many women who follow a male road toward what they believe to be liberation."1

Feminists have been very successful in selling their revolutionary vision of a genderless society. Their underlying assumption is that gender-differentiated roles and clothes are not God's intent and contribute to male dominance. Consequently, for feminists it is imperative to eliminate such gender distinctions to achieve the emancipation of women. James Laver maintains, "In a patriarchal society—one in which the man is dominant—the clothes of men and women are vastly different. But in a matriarchal society [one in which the woman is dominant] the clothes worn by the two sexes become more and more alike."2

The unisex fashion which became popular in America in the sixties reflects the women's attempt to achieve equality with men. In her book Historic Costume, Katherine Lester wrote about the emerging unisex fashion during the sixties: "With many women wearing pants and many men enjoying more adventuresome clothes and hairstyles, fashions for both sexes became similar. This trend, termed 'unisex,' went with the move toward sexual and economic equality of men and women, and the blurring of the traditional male and female roles in society."3

Important Distinctions

In spite of its popularity, the attempt to eliminate gender distinctions in clothes as well as in roles is clearly condemned in the Bible. The Scriptures teach respect for gender distinctions in dress as well as in functional roles, because they are part of the order of creation. It is not funny for a man to dress and adorn himself as a woman, or vice versa, because God intended that there should be a clear distinction between the outward appearance of men and that of women. This is plainly taught in Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Some interpret this law as directed against a simulated change of sex for immoral purposes. But most commentators question this interpretation because "no historical data have been found to back up this assumption."4 As Keil and Delitzsch noted, "The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices ... but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction ... was unnatural, and therefore an abomination to the Lord."5 This interpretation is supported by the stipulations of verses 9-11, which prohibit the amalgamation of different kinds of seeds or animals, to avoid their confusion and to preserve them intact as God created them.

The reason, as I have shown elsewhere,6 is that this is fundamental to our understanding of who we are and what role God wants us to fulfill in this present life. There are profound interrelationships between the clothes we wear and the roles we fulfill. The feminists have long recognized this fact. This explains why they are committed to eliminating gender distinctions both in clothes and functional roles.

Nature or Nurture?

The attempt to eliminate gender distinctions in clothes and functional roles stems from the assumption that such distinctions are largely the result of nurture rather than nature, learned behavior rather than biology. To put it differently, gender distinctions are cultural rather than creational. Thus it is necessary to modify or eliminate whatever fosters sex differences in behavior in order to realize a genderless society where women can enjoy full equality with men.

It is noteworthy that the credibility of this popular feminist vision is being discredited today by feminist scientists themselves. Melvin Konner, who has given us a comprehensive treatment of the subject, lists the names of eleven "distinguished women scientists who devote their lives to the study of brain, hormones or behavior, human and animal."7 Each of these women have been involved in the feminist movement on the level of scholarly research, yet each of them "without exception" agrees that "sex differences in behavior ... have a basis that is in part biological."8

According to Konner, "These women are doing a balancing act of formidable proportions. They continue to struggle, in private and in public, for equal rights and equal treatment for people of both sexes; at the same time, they uncover and report evidence that the sexes are irremediably different—that after sexism is wholly stripped away, after differences in training have gone the way of the whalebone corset, there will still be something different, something that is grounded in biology."9

Need to Recover Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

It is encouraging to note that some feminist scholars recognize that the gender differences in behavior, which the Bible describes and prescribes as part of God's order of creation, derive more from biology than from nurture and training. As Adventists we did not need to wait for feminist scientists to discover this truth. After all, this is a fundamental biblical teaching that has been accepted historically. Men and women are biologically, psychologically, and functionally different. The Bible teaches us to respect these differences. The attempts to eliminate such differences must be seen as a perversion of God's creational order.

As Adventists we must reject the incoherent feminist ideal that, as Elisabeth Elliot put it, "flattens all human beings to a single level—a faceless, colorless, sexless wasteland where rule and submission are regarded as a curse, where the roles of men and women are treated like machine parts that are interchangeable, replaceable, and adjustable, and where fulfillment is a matter of pure politics, things like equality and rights."10 This is not the biblical vision of manhood and womanhood, nor is it the vision that has inspired poets and the literature of the ages. The Christian vision springs from the mysterious way in which God created man and woman different and yet complementary. When we accept this biblical vision we cannot swallow the view that femininity and masculinity are a matter of cultural conditioning, of stereotypes perpetrated by tradition.

It is unfortunate that gender distinctions have been abused to promote the subjugation of women. We deplore the abuses perpetrated by men against women—and, let us not forget, by women against men, because all have sinned. This shows that we live in a fallen world where sin has marred the harmonious gender distinctions and relationships that God created. As Christians we must work redemptively to correct gender injustices.

We must do this, however, not by eliminating the gender distinctions in clothes or roles, but rather by eradicating the abuses introduced and perpetrated by fallen human beings. What men and women need today is not to become genderless in function and appearance, but rather to rediscover the biblical ideal of manhood and womanhood.

Elisabeth Elliot wisely observed, "The world looks for happiness through self-assertion. The Christian knows that joy is found in self-abandonment. 'If a man will let himself be lost for My sake,' Jesus said, 'he will find his true self.' A Christian woman's true freedom lies on the other side of a very small gate—humble obedience—but that gate leads out into a largeness of life undreamed of by the world, to a place where God-given differentiation between the sexes is not obfuscated but celebrated, where our inequalities are seen as essential to the image of God, for it is in male and female, in male as male and female as female, not as two identical and interchangeable halves, that the image of God is manifested."11

Identity Confusion

Tampering with gender distinctions can have unfathomable consequences. When we deal with masculinity and femininity, we are dealing, as C. S. Lewis put it, with the "live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge."12

Historically, clothes have served to define our masculinity or femininity. Clothes define our identity and help us develop a new identity. This means that when we blur gender distinctions in clothing, we gradually lose something of our male or female identity and experience an identity crisis.

It is interesting to note that as women become more masculine in their appearance, men become more feminine. The result is that some men want to be courted by women rather than doing the courting themselves. According to Winick, "Contemporary men may wear gaily colored clothing, perfumes, and jewelry as one reflection of their increasing tendency to become the objects, rather than the initiators, of courtship."13

Over a century ago Ellen White recognized the serious social and moral implications of genderless clothing. In 1867 she wrote: "God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes causes confusion and great increase of crime."14

Confusion in the Home

Confusion begins in the home when children can no longer tell who is supposed to "wear the pants," mom or dad. "After all the jokes about who wears the pants in an American family, there is suddenly nothing to smile at. Perhaps only the pants' manufacturers are laughing, now that women's clothing stores may sell more trousers than skirts."15

Over thirty years ago when unisex fashion was still in its infancy, Eloise Curtis, a designer of junior dresses and gowns, warned of the problem of confusion in the home: "In many homes there is no longer an externally visible difference between the sexes. A woman donning pants subconsciously dons a few masculine characteristics in her approach to her baby. The baby, seeing nothing but pants around, becomes confused as to where his mother begins and his father leaves off."16

Confusion in the Workplace

Confusion continues in the workplace, where in many occupations women are dressed like men and are expected to perform with the same physical strength as men. It troubles me when, for example, the parcel service company sends a woman to my place to pick up a large consignment of books for overseas, sometimes consisting of over 100 cartons, each weighing about 40 pounds. Personally I think that this is more weight than one woman should have to lift and move around. When I ask, "Why doesn't your company send a man to pick up so many heavy cartons?" the answer is simple: "If we want the job, we are expected to perform like men." And to prove it, they wear the same brown pants and shirts worn by the men. But the fact remains that women are not men. They are biologically, psychologically, and physically different from men. As Christians, we are called to respect these distinctions established by God at creation by treating women as women and not as men.

Confusion in the Church

Confusion is also present in the church, where some women wear pant suits to church like men and, not surprisingly, some women want to serve in the male role of "elders," a word which literally means "older men."

I found it distressing and amusing at the same time to discover that in some Italian Adventist churches I visited, some women had been ordained as anziano rather than as anziana, that is, as a male elder rather than as a female elder.

In our Italian language, as in all Latin languages, adjectives can be masculine or feminine, depending on the ending. This means that an older man is anziano, with an "o" ending, while an older woman is anziana, with an "a" ending. Grammatically speaking, then, the masculine adjective anziano cannot be used for a woman. Thus to ordain a woman to be a male anziano is not only unbiblical but also a contradiction of genders. When I asked, "Why are you using the masculine form anziano for women?" the answer was, "Because women want the status and not the submissive role of women."

A Sign of Rebellion

We live in a world in rebellion against God, a world in which men and women want to find fulfillment in trying to assume roles God never intended them to have. The result of this rebellion is gender confusion not only in roles, but also in clothing. A woman who wants to function as a man most likely will dress like a man because clothes are a mirror of the mind. What we wear reveals who we are or what we want to be. Crossing the gender line in clothing causes gender confusion in roles.

In my book Women in the Church, I have examined at some length those Bible passages that teach us to respect the sexual and functional role distinctions between men and women, both in the home and in the church. These distinctions are reflected and reinforced by a difference in attire between men and women. Adventists must recognize today's efforts to abolish these distinctions as Satan's attempt to destroy the order and beauty of God's creation.

An Adventist Response

What should be the Adventist response to today's attempts to abolish gender distinctions in roles and clothes? The answer is simple. It is imperative for Adventists to follow the biblical principles of gender distinction in roles and clothes, even if society is bent on eliminating them. This may not be easy. But to live by Bible principles has never been easy. Yet this is our Christian calling, not to conform to the perverted values, styles, and practices of our hedonistic society, but to be a transforming influence in this world through the enabling power of God.

As Christians we should be thankful to God for the masculine or feminine gender He has given us. A woman should be thankful that God has made her a woman, remarkably different from a man, and yet of great value in God's plan for the family, society, and the world. Similarly, a man should be thankful that God made him a man, remarkably different from a woman, yet of great value in God's plan for the family, society, and the world.

At a time when society is bent on eliminating gender distinctions in clothing and functional roles, it is imperative for us Adventists to respect our God-given masculinity and femininity by clothing ourselves and serving the Lord in roles that affirm our gender identity.