The highlight of the afternoon was the famous “Burn Your Bra” Freedom Trash Can. With elaborate ceremony and shouts of joy, the protesters threw away what they identified as male-promoted “instruments of torture”–high-heeled shoes, corsets, girdles, padded bras, stockings, false eyelashes, curlers, and copies of Playboy, Cosmopolitan, and Ladies Home Journal. They shouted “Freedom for Women!” and “No More Miss America” and hung a banner from the balcony reading “Women’s Liberation.”

The display marked the cultural launch of feminism—the philosophy that women have the right to define their own existence. Feminists argued that women had been wrongly defined by men as housewives and/or sex objects. They reasoned that women would find happiness, wholeness, and self-respect when they had the freedom to define themselves. And culture promptly set about giving them the power and right to do so.

Fast forward to 2010.

Last week, Miss USA released the official contestant photos of  51 pageant hopefuls. The look? Lacy black lingerie, fishnets, smudged kohl eyeliner, knee-high boots, stilettos, voluptuous cleavage, and naked flesh, the like of which have traditionally been associated with prostitutes and porn stars, not beauty queens.  The photo shoot, entitled “Waking up in Vegas,” featured steamy, seductive Playboy-like poses on a large bed and other bedroom furniture.

Rima Fakih made history as the first Arab-American to win the pageant. Besides being crowned Miss USA, she also has the dubious distinction of procuring top honors in a pole dancing competition. What’s even more startling than her lewd behavior, is that this behavior is supported by women. It’s women who uphold the right of Fakih and other contestants to break the “princess, good-girl” stereotype. According to female organizers, princess is passé – but the woman who exerts her sexual power is smart, sophisticated, and worthy of a Miss USA title.

What was once considered exploitative is now considered empowering.

How did this happen? The feminists of the past protested against the sexual objectification of women. Thus, it would appear that modern women have rejected the tenets of feminism. Ironically, however, quite the opposite is true. The raunch culture of today is due to the fact that young women have so thoroughly embraced feminist thought.

Feminism taught the new generation that:

1. Men have historically deprived women of power and freedom
2. Women need to reclaim their power and freedom
3. Women exert power and freedom by rejecting the restrictive, male-defined roles and boundaries of Judeo-Christianity
4. Women have the right to define their own behavior
5. Women have the right to define what womanhood is all about

The daughters of the feminist generation were raised on these ideas. They embraced them and took them to heart. Since sex is power, what better way for women to exert their power than through sexuality? They concluded that Girl Power is best expressed by throwing off all boundaries and becoming brazenly sexual. The Spice Girls, The Sex & the City stars, and celebrities such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan all modeled the idea that empowerment equals the right to be raunchy. The idea quickly caught on.

Joe Francis, the Hugh Hefner of Gen X and founder of the Girls Gone Wild porn video series, capitalized on the trend. Accompanied by his camera crews, Francis visited beaches, nightclubs, and parties across America seeking “everyday” college-age women who would flash their breasts, make out with each other, and be sexually lewd on camera in exchange for GGW-emblazoned T-shirts or hats. Francis raked in as much as forty million dollars a year from the sale of these videos. When asked why he thought thousands of young women were so eager to exhibit themselves for his cameras, so willing to objectify themselves in exchange for trucker hats and tank tops, Francis simply said: “It’s empowering. It’s freedom.”

This generation thinks that raunch equals power and freedom. Newsweek has dubbed this, “The Girls Gone Wild Effect.” Nowadays, raunchy sexuality has become the prevalent expression of a woman’s freedom and power.

Joe Francis sees the Girl-Gone-Wild phenomenon as the ultimate expression of feminism. Muzi Mei, the Carrie Bradshaw of Beijing who became a superstar by blogging about her sexual conquests, agrees. She told a reporter, “I express my freedom through sex. It’s my life, and I can do what I want.”

It’s the ultimate irony that the foundational beliefs of feminism have contributed to the increased sexual objectification and pornographication of women. Society’s thorough acceptance of feminist precepts is one of the reasons why behavior that was seen as destructive in 1968 is celebrated as desirable in 2010. When Miss America 1968 appeared in an evening gown and swimwear at the bequest of men, feminism identified her as “exploited.” But when Miss USA 2010 appears in fishnet stockings in sexy bedroom porn, and boldly rejects social convention by entering a pole dancing competition—and does so of her own choice, self-determination and exerting her right to freedom—she embraces and lives out feminism’s core tenets. Given a feminist belief system, culture has no choice but to identify her brash, immoral behavior as“empowered.”

Feminism didn’t provide the answer for woman’s happiness, wholeness, and self-identity. It’s just led us further away from the truth. Girls, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…. I think the time is ripe for a new movement—a seismic holy quake of counter-cultural men and women who dare to take God at his word, those who have the courage to stand against the popular tide, and believe and delight in God’s plan for male and female. A revolution of women embracing God’s design is the needed antidote to counter the self-deterministic feminist mindset that unwittingly justifies the Miss USA type of madness.

© Mary A. Kassian

When I was working in rehab medicine in the early eighties, one of my patients was a 24-year old single woman who suffered a stroke from taking the pill, and as a result, was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. That was my first clue that the pill wasn’t as safe and wonderful as the pharmaceutical companies made it out to be. In the seventies and eighties, thousands of women died or were disabled after suffering blood clots or strokes related to the medication.

The pill contains synthetic hormones that override the normal hormonal functions of a woman’s body to prevent ovulation. This is not a natural state for any woman, and opponents warn that women who use the pill leave themselves susceptible to major medical problems that may not show up until later in life. Even though the levels of hormones in the pill have been reduced, the side effects of taking the pill are still complex and long lasting.

Many claim that the pill is responsible for serious long-term medical conditions such as infertility, cancers, strokes, and blood clots. Furthermore, women can experience symptoms like weight gain, breast engorgement and tenderness, bloating, mood swings, severe PMS, and headaches. A recent study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine indicates that the pill can lower a woman’s sexual desire, and lead to sexual dysfunction.

Just last month, about 800 Canadians filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the maker of several popular new-generation pills have put sales ahead of safety, and have caused young women to suffer complications ranging from blood clots and high blood pressure, to cardiac arrest and death. While the allegations haven’t been proven in court, the claims filed last month say that the birth control pills, Yaz and Yasmin, have caused blood clots, gallbladder problems, high blood pressure, cardiac arrest, stroke and at least seven deaths in Canada and more than 50 in the United States. A class action suit in the US is pending. The law groups behind the class action argue that the Pharmaceutical Company concealed the adverse effects of its products from regulatory authorities and from the public and failed to warn customers of the medical risk of birth control pills.

The medical risk alone ought to have curbed society’s enthusiasm for the pill. But the fact is, the pill’s development was championed by women with a specific philosophical worldview. Margaret Sanger, for instance, raised large sums of money to underwrite the research. Sanger, an atheist, birth control activist, advocate of eugenics, and founder of Planned Parenthood, anticipated that the advent of the pill would enable the wholesale advancement of her agenda. And therein lays the rub. Medical hazards aside, the pill has supported the advancement of ideas, attitudes and behaviours that are markedly unbiblical. For example:

1. The mindset that sex can be separated from marriage and children
2. The mindset that sex is primarily about personal pleasure
3. The thought that there ought to be no consequence to sex outside of marriage
4. An increased tolerance & acceptance of immorality
5. A decreased commitment to marriage and family
6. An unbiblical attitude toward children (commodity or burden)
7. A negative attitude toward motherhood
8. A negation of the distinctions between male and female
9. A devaluation of woman’s role in the home
10. The attitude that marriage/family are of lesser priority & value than self/career
11. The exaltation of self and devaluation of others (exalt individual over community)
12. The illusion that we can control our own fertility
13. The focus on personal rights rather than responsibility
14. The mindset that women have the right and power to set their own course
15. The mindset that humans determine what sex, marriage and gender are all about

The pill was not a benign medical advance. It was introduced to advance a particular worldview and philosophy. The approval of the birth-control pill in 1960 ushered in the sexual revolution, buttressed the feminist movement, changed the nature of the relationship between the sexes, and dramatically transformed the shape of society. And women, en masse, have swallowed it. The most recent government data indicates that more than eight in 10 American women, ages 15 to 44, have taken the pill at some point in their lives.

So how do you, as a Christian woman, decide whether you should take the birth control pill? First, it’s important that you ensure that your mindset toward sex, marriage, and children is not based on culture, but on the Word of God.  Do you value marriage and children as the Lord does?  Do you honor His design for sex and gender? Do you welcome children as a precious gift? Does your attitude toward womanhood and motherhood line up with His? Are you seeking God’s input and heart on the matter? Are you allowing the Lord to direct your life, or are you the one dictating the terms? Have you considered the option of bucking the trend and allowing the Lord to determine the number and timing of your children? Are you asking the Lord about how to approach family planning? Have you prayed about how many children He wants you to have? Have you examined whether your views are shaped by culture or by the Bible?

I don’t believe that we can make hard and fast rules about the use of birth control, but I do believe that regrettably, our mindset toward sex, marriage, children and motherhood are often more influenced by the world than the Word. Make sure that you ask yourself the hard questions. Wrestle with what the Bible teaches about the value of children and the meaning of sex… And examine the willingness of your heart to obey.

Second, do not be naive to the potential negative side effects of taking the pill. Don’t think that it couldn’t happen to you. Those women who suffered strokes, heart attacks, and who died didn’t think it would happen to them, either—nor did those who, several years down the road, find themselves struggling with infertility or frigidity. There is a definite risk involved with taking the pill. I advise women who want to use birth control to consider alternate methods to delay pregnancy, or alternate medical treatments for their conditions. Do some research and make sure you are well informed before making a decision.

Pharmaceutical companies, the medical community, and birth control advocates have promoted the pill as a safe, normal part of womanhood—the key to woman’s power and freedom. But in reviewing the risks and the cultural fall-out, I think that the pill has had an overall negative impact on women. This is one golden anniversary that I wouldn’t exactly call a happy one.

© Mary A. Kassian

In my opinion, the research (and the Globe and Mail’s foreboding advice) demonstrates more about a prevalent bias against marriage, motherhood, and womanhood than it does about the competence,  intelligence and ambition of women who change their names.

First, it’s important to note that the researchers and participants of the study were unmarried college students. Since college students have not yet embarked on a career, it’s safe to assume that their perceptions are not based on their experience with married women in the workforce, but rather on what they’ve been taught about the ideals to which women ought to aspire.

College students have been have been taught that if a woman is smart, she will be career-minded, independent, and calculating—a high-earner, who is fiercely intent on reaching the highest rung on the career ladder. They’ve been trained to believe that it would be a “waste” for a smart woman to spend her life on family rather than career. Those women who value marriage, family, and commitment above career—those who get married and/or change their name, become dependent on a man, or give up anything for him—are regarded by today’s students as either less competent, or just plain dumb.

Unfortunately, it may take several decades of life experience for it to dawn on them that this simply isn’t true. And by then, their course will be set, and it will be too late.

Why should you say “I do” to changing your name when you get married? I think there are six biblically-based reasons:

1. Unity:  Scripture says that when you become married, you become one flesh with your husband.  Changing your name to his reflects that fact. (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5)
2. Identification: Scripture teaches that it’s the man who launches out to establish a new family unit. Changing your name to his, and naming your children with the same name, identifies all of you as part of his family unit. (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5)
3. Commitment: Changing your name indicates that you are making a permanent, life-long commitment to your husband, and will henceforth be identified as being inseparably linked to him. (Rom. 7:2; Matt. 19:6)
4. Roles: Changing your name to his indicates that you affirm the biblical pattern of your husband being the head of your marriage and household. (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5)
5. Paradigm: Since the relationship between husband and wife is a paradigm of the relationship between Christ and the church, Christian women who change their name model and bear witness to the reality of Christ changing our names when we enter a relationship with Him. We—the church Bride—identify ourselves with Him and are called by His name when we become one with Him. Christ’s bride is rightly called by her Husband’s name. A woman who changes her name bears witness to this part of the gospel story. (Isa. 43:7, Acts 15:17, 2 Chron. 7:14, Rev. 3:12; 14:1)
6. Precedence: Adam named Eve. Twice. (Gen. 2:23; 3:20)

Whether a woman uses her husband’s name is a cultural practice– but culture cannot be separated from ideology. A culture’s practice is based on that culture’s belief system. The reason our culture is deviating from the practice of a woman adopting her husband’s name is due to a devaluation of marriage and emphasis on woman’s independence from man.

More and more women are keeping their names, or hyphenating their names, or negotiating with their husbands to change both names to a new, blended name. Although the Bible doesn’t directly address this issue, I believe there are strong reasons for a woman to take on her husband’s name when she gets married.

Contrary to popular media opinion, saying “I Do” to changing your name may, in fact, be more intelligent than saying “I Don’t.”

© Mary A. Kassian

This past weekend, my family had the enormous joy of celebrating my parent’s 60^th wedding anniversary. It is rare indeed that couples remain married long enough, or live long enough to reach such a momentous milestone. I figure that anyone married that long will have some premium advice on how to make a marriage last—advice that’s far better than any that Seinfeld or his philandering and serially-divorced pals have to offer.  Seizing the occasion, I asked my mom to come up with a few tidbits of marriage/relationship advice to share with you on my blog.

So here are 10 tried-and-true pure-gold tips from my mom, a 60-year marriage pro:

1. Don’t confuse love with infatuation. Love is much more than just a feeling—it’s a choice.
2. Love is giving and serving.
3. To love, you need to “grow up” and make mature instead of childish choices.
4. When you say “I do” on your wedding day, you enter into the school of love. Remember that you will always be a student. Learning how to love requires constant, life-long effort.
5. As you go through life, you will have to adjust to one another again and again.
6. To overcome difficulties, you have to set aside personal interests and die to self. It’s hard, but it’s worth it.
7. Always try to esteem, recognize and encourage your spouse.
8. Read Gods precious Word together for encouragement and guidance.
9. Pray together.
10. Use the “Love Passage” (1 Corinthians 13) to regularly evaluate if you’re doing a good job loving your spouse:

• Am I patient with my spouse?
• Am I kind to my spouse?
• Am I envious of, or feel like I’m in competition with my spouse?
• Am I boastful that I am better than my spouse?
• Am I rude toward my spouse?
• Am I seeking my own interests rather than my spouse’s interests?
• Am I easily angered?
• Do I keep a record of wrongs?
• Do I always protect and guard our relationship?
• Do I choose to trust my spouse?
• Do I hold on to hope for our marriage?
• Do I always persevere?
• Does my love for my spouse never fail?

There you have it.  Brent and I been married for almost 28 years, and given my mom’s list, still have a lot of learning and growing up to do in the marriage department. I guess that’s her point– that a good marriage requires a life-long commitment to work at being a better lover. I think that this week I’ll try to recognize and encourage Brent more. What about you? Which piece of my Mom’s advice will you put into practice this week?

Oh, and thanks Mom—for your and Dad’s amazing example! What a gift and what a legacy you have left for your children, grandchildren and their children to come. Happy Anniversary! I love you!!!

© Mary A. Kassian

The commercial anticipated that men would identify with the cultural de-masculinization of males depicted by the pant-less parade. The take-away was that they would be challenged to once again “Wear the Pants,” both  literally and figuratively.

Like the commercial, Docker’s “Wear the Pants” magazine ad decries the feminization of males. It touts the concept that masculinity is valuable and good, that a lack of masculine men is harmful to society, and that the world needs men to step up and be true men. The advertisement contains a “MAN-ifesto,” shaped in the silhouette of a man (see picture), that says:

Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their Khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, WE NEED HEROES. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It’s Time to get your hands dirty. It’s time to answer the call of manhood. IT’S TIME TO WEAR THE PANTS!

The Docker’s ad campaign reveals that there’s an underlying sentiment amongst men that their masculinity has been devalued. They have been feminized – “left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny.” The new cultural definition of manhood does not “fit” with who they are, and they are keenly feeling the disconnect.

Men are not women. They are not genderless. They are not androgynous. They have an innate, God-given bent to initiate and be heroes. They want to untie the world from the tracks of complacency. They want to get their hands dirty. They want to answer the call of manhood. They want to be MEN… and what’s more, they want women to be women.

The  ad astutely observes that “today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for.”

Though Dockers doesn’t  provide a  satisfactory resolution for the gender conundrum, it does raise a profound point: There IS a strong connection between gender and and the “answer” to the world’s problems.Gender is not the answer. But it was meant to point to and reveal the answer. Manhood and womanhood were created to display the story of the Gospel and the glory of God. So when we don’t get gender right, the answer to humanity’s problem is obscured.

I agree that it ’s time for men to wear the pants. But I’m not talking about the khakis that Dockers are peddling, or some re-invented macho-male cultural stereotype. It’s time for men to wear the pants of godly manhood, and women to wear the skirt of godly womanhood, so that the gospel of Jesus Christ will be proclaimed …And so that this genderless generation, which is so broken and desperately seeking for answers, will find THE answer to the deepest question of the human heart.

© Mary A. Kassian