What is "Realmannspracht"?

Heh...you can get a good idea from this blog posting at one of my favoritest blogger's sites: The Spearhead

I left a comment there but its an old post, so I don't think anyone will really see it. But I think it was a good one and should be read. I believe it is fair and balanced to both sides - it also is disagreeable to both sides...

Like EW, I reference God of Christianity as the moral backdrop to my life, so keep in mind that what I am saying comes from this worldview.

Pro-Male / Anti-Feminist Tech said the following:

So much realmannspracht is defined based on women’s choices (i.e. if a woman marries you for socons or if a woman has sex with you for guys on the other end). This like so many other definitions of a “real man” (TM) fail all objectivity since they’re dependent on women.

This is very similar to what I’ve seen on some feminist blogs when it comes to the definition of physical “femininity”. Why is femininity always coming from the stance of what masculinity likes?

Renee said this on modesty…

Honestly, I think this all goes back to society attempting to control female sexuality and how female sexuality used to be (and today still in some circles) feared and seen as evil. It was a form of control in a way.

She’s absolutely right that modesty for women is a form of control on sexuality. But she’s wrong in thinking its a bad thing.

I also think she’s wrong that there is no modest code for men…there is. I’ve seen it first-hand – and I’ve seen immodest men aplenty on tv without nakedness.

You can’t use victorian definitions for applying modesty to chests, so you can’t use a man without a shirt vs women and breasts as an example of victorian modesty controlling female sexuality because women’s breasts were as everyday then as a man’s bare chest was – if not more. Necklines were so low to make breastfeeding easier (pop one out via style of the ‘immodest’ extreme la leche clubs that EW loves so much – amazing the tidbits of info you garner when researching breast feeding and renaissance gowns!).

But men were also held to modesty standards. Their trousers didn’t hang loosley around their hips so you could see the abdominal muscles as they trailed to the genital area like you see today in Abercrombi & Fitch adverts (and yes, that’s immodest and does make a girl stare); they were practically around their chests. For the longest time, men would only go shirtless in the company of other men or around their wives – if a lady was present, on came the shirt. It was immodest to be caught in your skivvies around a woman and to have bare leg showing (keep those stockings and garters on, men). It was also customary to show modesty in speech and behavior – you didn’t drink strong drinks or smoke cigars around a lady (brandy was reserved to after-dinner hours in the den where women were not allowed) nor was it acceptable to be vulgar, lewd, or brawly around a woman. There were standards for male modesty that controlled their sexuality just as much as women – its just that the modern day woman is not so readily willing or able to recognize the examples that history gives us of this.

(However, we also know that whorehouses were places where men could do all these things in the presence of a female without censorship)

Now my actual point – my argument against both Pro/Anti and Renee is the same – God did not create man (or woman) in a vaccuum. First, he created us for HIM. But he created us both male and female for eachother.

Its not a popular thought in today’s society to think that the female gender was created for men (for God saw that something was missing in just creating one gender) and that the female gender also requires the male to reciprocate. He created exactly what the male needed to make the world perfect when he created women by creating a gender who needed him.

And I think that with this world-view, it is not inappropriate to define certain aspects of masculinity and femininity; manhood and womanhood; male modesty and female modesty within a framework that considers the gender whose needs they were meant to fill.

So men will continue to shave their faces if their wives (or girlfriends or the female populace they care about) find this attractive and women will continue to shave their legs and armpits for the same reason. (Sorry for the simplistic example)

I just think that defining manhood and womanhood completely without consideration for the opposite results in an incomplete picture.

Gone

Again.

Last trip of the year, though...and its only a week this time.

It sucks because I am so unhealthy when he's not here! Its a miracle that I stay alive. I don't eat right, I don't sleep right...the only one who wins is my new bed companion - when I make it into bed. You see...that means he eats all night.

At least one of us is well fed and well rested...

Morning Sickness Association

It has been absolutely wonderful not having to deal with morning sickness.

Some things, though, have become so associated with the sickness that they still bring back memories and a bit of a tummy ache - like the smell of hotdogs, Smallville, and my brand new Mustang.

These things I can avoid, though. And I do. While pregnant and confined to a couch because getting up meant needing a bucket attached to my neck, I watched 4-5 seasons of Smallville. My car's smell made me unbearably sick, and though I craved them for all of 5 seconds at a time, the smell (and thought) of hot dogs made my tummy turn.

But here's the kicker. My morning sickness went through the entire winter months. It started in early October and lasted till February.

So now that the weather is cooling down and October feels like October, I find myself having a queasy tummy thanks to association.

How long is this supposed to last? This used to be my favorite time of year - am I going to be adverse to it for the rest of my life?

Adulthood

So, I discovered broccoli from last night in the steamer...my left-overs.

And in the refrigerator, I have 1.5 heads of lettuce that are going bad...

On top of that, last night was the first meal in over a week that I've cooked.

As I walk out of my kitchen, I'm thinking to myself how horrible I am at this whole adult thing...I mean, who am I kidding? I can barely take care of myself and I'm caring for a baby.

And then I sit down to finish cleaning out the diaper bag and re-filling all the diaper wipe containers and it dawns on me. I would much rather be reading my book or playing a video game than doing what I'm doing, but here I am doing this. I'd much rather be watching TV than going shopping for food and clothes for Ethan, but I went shopping. And yeah, I slip up a LOT and do what I would rather be doing more often than I should, but I have a decently clean house, a well fed and clean baby and there IS food in the refrigerator.

Adulthood - you know when you are there when you choose to do what NEEDS to be done before you do what you WANT to do - and that is something that comes with age and maturity.

Twilight Saga

Strange that I'm reading these books. I'm not much for following trends and even more so, I tend to avoid books that are recommended to me (I'm a rebel, what can I say).

Initially, I deeply mistrusted the source of the first recommendation, knowing full well that I had a lot of issues with her reading choices. But I got so desperate for books that I started reading the Harry Potter books (again) while taking brief stints into Historical books like The Battle of Salamis written by a Cornell University History professor and The Eight Wives of Henry VIII.

Finally, one more person suggested I read it - and the source was one I felt I could trust. So...I've read the first two books.

They are addicting. Woefully so. Frustratingly so. And if I were a member of the target audience, these books would be so incredibly unhealthy.

Luckily, I'm older and wiser and am in a healthy relationship, so I recognize this girl's obsession as being unhealthy. I'm wise enough to recognize how wrong the dynamics are playing out and it bothers me that these books were written for young adults that don't know better.

Its such an oxymoronic relationship - on one hand you have a girl in a relationship with a guy who is a gentleman - but her obsession with him would make you think it was an emotionally abusive relationship. Her dependence on him is excruciatingly painful to witness. And then the male half of the relationship - he has the wisdom and maturity to know that this relationship isn't a good one but acts as a selfish child in fulfilling his selfish desires to be with her.

All in all, I wouldn't mind that part so much if the girl was more capable of healthy, emotional boundaries - alas, she's not.

And in the 2nd book it gets even worse when Edward leaves Bella and she's convinced he doesn't love her anymore...and in her attempts to recover over her loss of him, she becomes attached to another boy who loves her - and she loves him, just not as much as she loved Edward - who, by the end of the book when Edward comes back because he can't live without Bella, this boy is ultimately crushed.

Its hard to watch and it makes me uneasy with how careless the author treats her characters and how irresponsible she is towards her target audience - an audience who doesn't know better when it comes to developing healthy emotional boundaries in relationships.

The author likes to say she is influenced by L.M. Montgomery and Anne of Green Gables, but while I was reading these books, I didn't see it - Bella may be learning what is unhealthy and self-destructive, but she does nothing to put a stop to her self-destructive behavior - unlike Anne Shirley, who, upon recognizing a poor choice, does her best to avoid such trouble in the future. And Anne maintains proper boundaries to a well-enough extent that you don't feel hurt for a rejected suitor...he's left with enough of his heart to more easily move on.

However, i did come across one quote from the author that I find is a good thing and her books to a good job of illustrating it -

Other major themes of the series include choice and free will. Meyer says that the books are centered around Bella's choice to choose her life on her own, and the Cullens' choices to abstain from killing rather than follow their temptations: "I really think that's the underlying metaphor of my vampires. It doesn't matter where you're stuck in life or what you think you have to do; you can always choose something else. There's always a different path."

(From wikipedia)

Unfortunately, this theme is really subtle and would require discussion on the books with an older/wiser for a younger audience to really pick up on it.

And to be quite frank, as I stated in another blog post on this subject, I think parents nowadays are too lazy to engage with their children on this stuff.

Interesting post

I'll provide some more info later - baby is demanding today...
Feminism and Christianity

Back to the Point

You know, I had originally started this blog for a friend of mine who is a feminist.

I really have gone in the wrong direction on it, but it started pretty well. Pretty much, the idea was to do a Bible study through scripture, highlighting the parts that talk about womanhood and manhood.

I'm not much into the minute details of specific passages - I hate tearing a passage to pieces to find out its real meaning instead of using its context for meaning. I find it tedious and pointless. Context is more than just the surrounding verses - its the entire book. The whole thing paints a picture and if two parts seemingly contradict, then you have something wrong in your thinking.

I've trained myself to rethink when i come across things that may appear to contradict so that I may better understand - and I have no need of a ton of language lessons to figure this out.

Problem with pursuing this is that more than just Feminism makes my skin crawl - a world that ignores consequences also rankles me - and so do parents that over-shelter rather than educate their children. I get off track a bit...

I also want to take a less (and more) critical look of feminism - what it is, how its used, and all its different forms - the less evil-intentioned of this group believe there's a need for it - and it has nothing to do with making men subject to women and everything to do with protecting themselves.

I will never change my mind that feminism is a product of a lack of trust. Its a lack of trust in God, foremost - because to obey him means to subjugate herself to a man (a father or husband) and let him be the ruler of her.

Considering how difficult it is to learn to trust the people around you who clearly love you, I don't find it at all out of scope that it would be difficult to learn to trust God...trusting that he has plans not to destroy you but to give you hope and a future.

It also is a lack of trust in men in the general, husbands specifically. History has marked men as taking advantage of scripture that gives them power. From laws to lack of laws, moments in history have taken advantage and abused women.

It is true that feminism has left a mark on history, as well - a mark that generally goes unrecognized when it shouldn't. The decades prior to the fall of the greatest empire the world has seen was prolific with Feminism - in a very bad way. Its just that those moments have been shortlived, so don't garner much attention.

I believe, strongly, that scripture is the only source of equal treatment of men and women. It outlines how we should live with eachother. Its not all that we want to hear - there are some very difficult things to swallow in it - but it is the best way. Its not just women that have difficult things to do - men do to. Both sides.

But in a world where one or the other can take advantage of an imbalance in power, how do you promote laws that protect both? Women write laws that protect women and shame men. Men write laws that protect men and shame women. They both have evil tendencies to be selfish and protect ways of life that benefit one over the other. They also have a tendency to protect evil desires of their gender to their own demise - such as protection of sexual freedom (both genders are guilty of this).

I came across this idea not so long ago as it applied to Captialism - it can not exist in a world void of moral and ethical values. The same goes for gender equality.

Where do we go from here?

Book Banning or Education?

There's some parents in Leesburg that are all upset about some books in the public library that involve teen drug-use and sex that were put into the young-adult (teenager) section of the library.

Funny, cuz the books are the literary version of the popular CW show Gossip Girl.

There's other merchandise out there with the Gossip Girl name on it to - its like a more racy version of Hannah Montana in the marketing they have going on.

TV shows spawn books due to frenzied popularity - and who do you think is watching the 8:00 show on weeknights and buying the Gossip Girl logo on their clothes?

Oh...the teenagers that these parents are attempting to protect by banning the exact same content from the library.

On a post about Credit Cards at Boundless, Heather had this to say and it echoes my sentiments nearly perfectly:

I'm a little ambivalent. One side of me says that we should educate college students (and high school and middle school students, too) and then let them make choices and deal with the consequences. But the other side says that yes, someone should have to prove that they have a self-produced income stream before being allowed to enter into the adult financial world.

I can't help but feel that these parents are being lazy in pursuing book banning rather than teaching their children how to make good and wise decisions in the media they choose to entertain themselves with and the choices they make in how they live their life.

After all, the tv show was inspired by the incredible plethora of sex and drugs in the school system now - pursuits that surround the children of these over-the-top parents.