mad men stories

Mad Men, for those of you not familiar, is an award winning AMC drama following the lives of New York City ad executives and their families in the 1960s. The central character, Don Draper, plays a Creative Director for the firm Sterling Cooper, and later Sterling Cooper Draper Price. He's a brilliant and creative salesman who is conflicted about his identity, and lives a discontented double life. One side of Don Draper is what would appear to be a typical 1960s family man: he goes to work everyday, sometimes comes home at night to a dinner provided by his wife, provides more than enough for his family to live on, and his wife stays at home to look after their two children and manage the household. The other side of Don Draper is an unhappy womanizer who dulls his conflict of identity by drowning himself in alcohol and [extra-martial] sex.

Betty, Don's wife, is a beautiful, blonde, quintessential Feminine Mystique era housewife, who does nothing outside of home management. She cooks, does the grocery shopping, oversees her household help, gossips with her neighbor friends, does not work outside the home, plans and hosts parties and events, doesn't ask questions of her husband's job or money management, always looks polished, adheres to current social etiquette and ensures her children do the same, and escorts Don to his work-related shows, dinners, and parties. Based on outward appearances, Betty is the perfect stay-at-home wife and mother.

Being recently married (just past the three month mark) and still nerdy, gender roles are always at the forefront of my mind. I had already dismissed the aforementioned portrait of a housewife as a standard, since the times have changed drastically. I had already intellectually dismissed the idea that a stay-at-home wife is the only "biblical" way to be. So, why, up until last week, did I find myself attempting a failing impression of Betty Draper, or better yet, June Cleaver?

My initial thought: because of the culture of gender roles. Of course, one could say it's because my mother also a modeled for me what a wife and mother should look like (stay-at-home household manager), but in actuality, the only real examples of marriage I got close up, including that of my parents, were strangely like June and Betty's models. The wife stays at home, makes sure everyone has good food to eat, and keeps a clean and welcoming home. The husband goes to work and brings home the goods. It wasn't until my husband told me I should stop trying to act like June Cleaver and read more books, did it occur to me how deeply these gender roles had become ingrained in the Conservative Evangelical circles in which I grew up, and as a consequence, ingrained in myself. It bothered me a bit. Is this the way it should be?

Here's what I have concluded so far: gender make up is one thing and is God-given, but gender roles are socially constructed, for the most part. Not all men will be working outside of the home, and not all women will be working inside the home. Not even all women will be assuming the role of household manager, but instead operate their businesses from inside their home, and have someone else cook and clean. The boxes don't fit everyone. I think everyone should operate on the basis of what their natural skills and talents are, as well as doing what needs to be done for a season, regardless of socially constructed gender roles. I'd like to think of gender roles in more of a pragmatic way.

I could very well be mistaken, so this is where I'd like to hear from you. What's your experience with gender roles? What's you take on them? What's worked, and what hasn't? Do you think there is a biblical model for specific gender roles?

Craftsmanship

You don't have to know anything about the character Ron Swanson from the TV series Parks and Recreation to appreciate the message of this video (Its only purpose is as a prompt to my thoughts.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0YAhykMMxc
  

Mathew Crawford published a book not long ago entitled "Shop Class as Soul Craft."   Though I have not read the book, I did read his essay with the same title that later inspired the book.  A few of his comments helped me bridge the gap between my vocation and intellectual wanderings.  Academics and craftsman do not often mix well, they stay in their respective theory vs practice sides of the spectrum.  For instance, most college professors in the humanities know nothing about basic mechanics; nor do mechanics know anything of Dante's Inferno.  I do not believe this to be a very ancient problem.  With the specialization of tasks brought about by the industrial revolution, the new norm has been to do one thing only, but be the best at it.  Though we have benefited materially from the assembly line mentality, I do not believe it has been all credit with no debit.  But while I equally loath mechanics lack of interest in the liberal arts, I will argue here for academia's need to take part is some form of craftsmanship whether it be planting a garden or a DIY project on the house.   

Quoting Crawford:

"As a residential electrician, most of my work got covered up inside walls. Yet even so, there is pride in meeting the aesthetic demands of a workmanlike installation. Maybe another electrician will see it someday. Even if not, one feels responsible to one’s better self. Or rather, to the thing itself — craftsmanship might be defined simply as the desire to do something well, for its own sake. If the primary satisfaction is intrinsic and private in this way, there is nonetheless a sort of self-disclosing that takes place. As Alexandre Kojève writes:

The man who works recognizes his own product in the World that has actually been transformed by his work: he recognizes himself in it, he sees in it his own human reality, in it he discovers and reveals to others the objective reality of his humanity, of the originally abstract and purely subjective idea he has of himself.

The satisfactions of manifesting oneself concretely in the world through manual competence have been known to make a man quiet and easy. They seem to relieve him of the felt need to offer chattering interpretations of himself to vindicate his worth. He can simply point: the building stands, the car now runs, the lights are on. Boasting is what a boy does, who has no real effect in the world. But craftsmanship must reckon with the infallible judgment of reality, where one’s failures or shortcomings cannot be interpreted away."

His reflection on craftsmanship makes perfect sense since it involves our working with a nature that cannot be bended to our liking without consequences. We inevitably must conform to it; Ideally, we learn to work with it. There is no 'explaining away' in craftsmanship, like Crawford says,"the lights are on" or they are not.

One more:

"Hannah Arendt says. 'The reality and reliability of the human world rest primarily on the fact that we are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially even more permanent than the lives of their authors.'
Because craftsmanship refers to objective standards that do not issue from the self and its desires, it poses a challenge to the ethic of consumerism, as the sociologist Richard Sennett has recently argued. 'The craftsman is proud of what he has made, and cherishes it, while the consumer discards things that are perfectly serviceable in his restless pursuit of the new. The craftsman is then more possessive, more tied to what is present, the dead incarnation of past labor."

Though so much more could be extrapolated from theses passages, I simply want the theological minds in the crowd that have never dared physical craftsmanship of any kind reflect that our savior,  the one who redeemed our humanity was himself a craftsman...a carpenter.

perceptions

"Feminist" is not a bad word, but there are many conservative evangelical christians who strongly dislike the word "feminist" or "feminism".  In fact, I usually refrain from using the term because of the strong cultural connotations and conceptions it carries along.  Personally, I understand that to be a feminist simply means being an advocate for men and women as human beings, created in the image of God, to be treated with dignity and respect, not hindered from certain jobs, roles, privileges, or care and protection, just because of gender. Not bad things, right? In that sense, I am quite comfortable calling myself a feminist, but most of the time, I don't, because when most conservative evangelicals hear that, they think of sexual liberation, abortion rights, and man-haters.  And there are feminists who fit that description, so it is not completely inaccurate to think in those terms.

The article linked below I found extremely helpful in clarifying the different movements and emphases of feminism throughout its history.  Not all feminism carries a negative connotation, so I can be free to call myself a feminist.  It also brings up some potential problems.  First, if I happen to call myself a feminist, I must still clarify which wave I am referring, because there are some aspects of feminism that have been detrimental to culture, and those are the aspects conservative Christians remember the most.  Second, if a pastor references feminism from the pulpit, s/he must clarify which movement s/he is referring to, so as not to perpetuate the idea that all feminism is bad.  With those potential problems, I am still not comfortable calling myself a feminist, even if I think it's a good thing.

After you read the article [blog post] I've linked below, I would love some feedback on its content, on your perception of feminism in general, how you think it affects your ministry, and anything else you think adds to the discussion.  

The F-Word: Why Feminism is Not the Enemy

Stuff Christians Say...

To preface my thoughts, please watch this video entitled: Stuff Christians Say...

How did you react? I hope you were able to laugh.  It does a remarkable job of showing how culturally conditioned our contemporary version of Christianity really is.  Those with even a little understanding of church history will realized it would not be funny to any generation but their own.  Think of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Billy Graham or even some of your parents finding this funny.  My point?  In our interactions together as Christians, humor is an essential way of communicating ecumenically.  Whether we are on a campus, workplace, or in church, Christian's should recognize their theological differences as partly humorous.  I have seen too many debates over free will/election end poorly.  I need not argue that Christians need to act more seriously about the beliefs they hold-- for this is the default nature of man.  I merely mean to suggest that in our debates with other Christians, a sense of history can go a long ways in alleviating  a heated discussion or church tension.  If we are able to poke fun at ourselves (as I believe was the purpose of the video) and realize the conversation we are talking part in was neither started by us, nor end with us puts a lot of perspective to the smallness of the place we occupy in church history.  Not to be misunderstood, the beliefs we hold about God are the most important part of us, but I believe being able to laugh at your own place in time can be the best starting point for discussing the most serious of beliefs.