On the Wimpification of Culture (v. 1)

In writing about the phenomenon of the culturally feminized man, perhaps I have been amiss in my use of certain words. Not that I've changed my opinion, mind you, but I think I underestimated the manner in which my use of the word "feminized", for example, would be taken. It seemed (and it still does) pretty clear to me, as it must to authors such as Mark Steyn and Nancy Pearcey, how the word should be taken. Yet, I think the negative aspects of this use of "feminization" is perhaps too easily linked up with the mere trait of being feminine (a wonderful trait, I might add, provided that one is female).

So... what word to use? Girlie-man? Nah. Too Terminator-esque. I had thought that "infantile" would be a valid substitute - but that wouldn't be fair to all the infants in the world (given that they are not yet in a position to defend themselves). So, I'm pretty much left with the word - wimpification - to utilize in describing what I see as negative cultural influences within our society.

That said, first up in this series of posts highlighting evidence of our wimpified culture, is a tidbit from Mere Comments, titled Is Easter Too Scary for Preschoolers?.

The pastors at this church in Raleigh, North Carolina, were perplexed when they saw the Holy Week Sunday school lessons for preschoolers from "First Look," the publisher of the one to five year-old Sunday school class materials. There wasn't a mention of the resurrection of Jesus. Naturally, the pastors inquired about the oversight. It turns out it was no oversight.

...

"Easter is a special time in churches," the letter from the publisher says. "It's a time of celebration and thankfulness. But because of the graphic nature of the Easter story and the crucifixion specifically, we need to be careful as we choose what we tell preschoolers about Easter."

...

The curriculum marketers must know how bad this sounds, so they reassure the church they believe that the Gospel is for all people. Leaving out the cross and the resurrection is actually to help children come to Christ. They write, "We're using these formative preschool years to build a foundation for that eventual decision by focusing on God's love and telling preschoolers that 'Jesus wants to be my friend forever.'"

Not only do they think that the Easter Resurrection Day story is too graphic for preschoolers to handle, they also think we should be teaching those same preschoolers some anti-Biblical notion that Jesus wants to be my friend forever. One has to wonder if their curriculum has some benign "Jesus", smiling, and clad in a sweater, asking the children, "Won't you let me be your friend? Please? It would mean so much to me? Oh, please, let me be your friend?"

Consider, though, is the "Jesus wants to be my friend forever" message, to four year-olds, any different from the "Jesus wants to have a personal relationship with you" sermon, pitched to adults? For a wimpified culture, I fear that the answer is, no.

Comments

[Bonnie]

Rusty, in my view, the folks who initially used the term “feminized” chose the wrong term, or used it in the wrong manner (satire aside), and those who perpetuate it are not making a prudent choice. Given the current gender confusion and “wars” which, imo, have gotten completely out of hand, it seems to me that to use the term “feminization” rather than discuss what is actually going on when persons of either sex do not live up to their calling in Christ, only serves to exacerbate, rather than help solve, the problem.

Plus, it insults both men and women (and perhaps also God) because, as you noted in a past comment thread, there's a difference between legitimate traits and behaviors, and character flaws. Should we tell a woman who’s handy with power tools (“Fix-it Chix") that she’s somehow masculinized? What can we accomplish with insult?

I agree that the attenuation or outright avoidance of basic reality for anyone, be it preschoolers, middle-school history students, or church congregations, is wrong. It’s one thing to protect, yet another to coddle or otherwise manipulate people so that they are ill-equipped to deal with life as it really is.

But I don’t think it's wise to make this a gender issue, because, imho, it’s not.

I also wouldn't say it’s an either/or proposition: the problem isn’t saying that Jesus wants to be your friend, or have a personal relationship with you – He does. It’s only a problem if that's the only thing preached about Jesus – if He’s not presented as everything that He is, or if it’s taken to a ridiculous extreme, which I think (?) is your objection.

[Rusty]

Bonnie,

Thank you for your comment (and very eloquently stated, I might add).

My objection, with regards to the Resurrection Day curriculum, has to do with the absurd notion that we must protect pre-schoolers from the graphic nature of the Easter story - the same story which is nothing more than the central tenet of Christianity - and instead replace it with a warm, cuddly feeling story of a benign Jesus. I then wonder if we don't perpetuate that notion in presenting the Gospel, to adults, in the (less than whole) form of a Jesus, meek & mild, who desperately wants to have a relationship with us (in contrast to the actual presentation of the Gospel in the context of sinful humans in need of repentance and a savior). That I find no problem with using the word "feminization" should be evident but, due to the other issues such word use raises, I have now chosen to use the word "wimipification."