It has been a long time since I have posted anything. With school starting for my children, my free time has dwindled slightly to say the least. :-) So my posts may be few and far in between sometimes, but I'm still trying to complete this project as I intended.
Since starting this book I have become a huge fan and an advocate of the principles found within its pages. I have tried many of them myself and have achieved great results. So far I have been in agreement with Ms. Andelin in her views on marriage and women's roles. I found many of her views to be right in line with the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad on women in Islam.
However, I have recently come across something that I am finding difficult to reconcile within my thinking. It's one of those things that someone is telling you is truth and providing all the evidence to prove their point, but it just goes against everything you've ever been taught even from childhood. I'm hoping some of you who may read this will chime in and offer some of your thoughts.
I am finishing up the section on femininity. If you recall, I talked about her chapters on the feminine appearance and mannerisms in earlier posts. I am now on the chapter entitled The Feminine Nature. Her characters of the feminine nature include: weakness, softness, submissiveness, dependence, tenderness, fearfulness and sweet promise.
Well, let's see, I learned early on in my childhood not to challenge men, or males, especially in things that they are naturally inclined to be good at. I learned that there are ways to get my point across and even my way, without directly challenging that ever so sensitive male ego. When I was a girl I didn't want to get into fights with boys over stupid stuff, so I didn't tease them or challenge them to contests. If we were playing together, I would just do my thing and let my actions speak for themselves. When I got married, I realized that challenging my husband was a quick means to messy end. Sometimes you gotta just give in and let him do his thing and find the right time and the right way to make your point. I heard Minister Farrakhan explain this by saying it is in a man's nature to excel a woman so that she will look up to him, and a woman has in her nature the desire to look up to her man. I don't have a problem with "taking low" as I call it, to avoid conflict and let my husband be the man. When it is necessary for me to correct my him or any man I may work with or come in contact with, I strive hard to do it in the best possible manner so as not to offend. I'm not perfect in this, and I admit I do challenge him sometimes, but I understand the principle and why being a submissive wife is important.
I have no problem with being dependent on my husband. I'm not trying to be an "independent black woman" and show the world how I can do everything on my own. God created everything in pairs, each dependent on the other for optimum success. I need and depend on him for certain things, and he needs me and depends on me for certain things. We have our roles and our strengths and weaknesses as individuals and as a couple. Together, we rely on each other to make our lives work and to achieve success. So I'm proud to say, I do need a man! Lol That's what they're here for right! (Just remember, they need us too.)
I think I'm pretty soft in my mannerisms, my husband has never complained about this. And as for sweet promise, well I'm still not exactly sure what she means by that! So I don't know if I have it or not.
The parts I have an issue with in this chapter are her points on being weak and fearful. She drives the point in about a woman not displaying too many signs of competency or ability in the presence of a man. She even says this is how seemingly clueless women are able to attract well-off, intelligent men. I've never been an airhead, for any reason. Again, I understand the point of helping to protect the male ego, and displaying a need for them. But to accept the characteristic of weakness, I just cannot accept. I do little things around my husband like make sure to leave all the heavy bags for him when we're unloading groceries together, or I may ask him to open a jar if he's with me in the kitchen. Little things like that I know show him I need him and he feels good doing those things for me. But I don't believe that either of us is under any illusion that I am a weak woman, in any sense of the word. In fact, let's define it. Webster's dictionary defines the word weak as;
1
: lacking strength: as
a : deficient in physical vigor : feeble, debilitated
b : not able to sustain or exert much weight, pressure, or strain
c : not able to resist external force or withstand attack
d : easily upset or nauseated <a weak stomach>
2
a : mentally or intellectually deficient
b : not firmly decided : vacillating
c : resulting from or indicating lack of judgment or discernment
d : not able to withstand temptation or persuasion <the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak>
3
: not factually grounded or logically presented <a weak argument>
4
a : not able to function properly <weak eyes>
b (1) : lacking skill or proficiency <tutoring for weaker students> (2) : indicative of a lack of skill or aptitude <history was my weakest subject>
c : wanting in vigor of expression or effect <a weak translation of the poem>
5
a : deficient in the usual or required ingredients : dilute <weak coffee>
b : lacking normal intensity or potency <a weak radio signal> <a weak strain of virus>
6
a : not having or exerting authority or political power <weak government>There's a lot there, but I don't claim any of it. I know for a fact that my husband is physically stronger than I am. It would be a shame if he wasn't, unless there was a medical issue present. Yet I do not accept that that makes me weak. I may not be able to do as many push ups, but I've carried babies, and that takes some serious strength. And I've got just enough girth to help him move furniture when no one else is there to help. SO, me, deficient in physical vigor, I don't think so. And I think this is true for most women. We have muscles, we have girth. Not as much as men, and we certainly shouldn't go around flaunting it, but we also shouldn't deny it and we shouldn't try to be weak.
There is nothing wrong with a woman basking in the strength of her husband or mate, and keeping her own strengths at bay in his presence. But to deny that strength all together and claim yourself to be weak, I believe is wrong. I think Mrs. Andelin should maybe have used other wording for this point, because language is powerful and it can shape your thinking and ultimately what you will become. I would NEVER tell my daughters to be weak in the presence of men. My father did not encourage me to be a weak woman, in fact he encouraged my strength. As does my husband, he even suggested I try his push up regimen. Lol
Next is the point on being fearful. Um, no. First of all, as Muslims, we are taught to fear no one but Allah (God), so why would I claim to be afraid of everything just to attract the fascination of a man. Andelin writes, "feminine women have a natural fear of dangers, whereas men are inclined to be unafraid of dangers". She even states that some men will intentionally put their wives in dangerous situations just to see how fearful their women are and how unafraid they are. That goes back to the old cliche I guess of a guy taking his girl to a scary movie just so she will want him to protect her. I guess, I can recall times that my husband has been amused when I became scared over something trivial, like turbulence on a plane or even earthquakes. He's so silly, the last few quakes we had he was riding them like ocean waves laughing, while I'm worried whether or not I should go grab the children! That's nature at work, sure.
Still, I don't want to claim that I am scary woman. It is natural to be afraid of things sometimes, but I believe in conquering my fears, not giving in to them. No doubt, my husband is my protector, he's my own personal knight in shining armor! It's his job to protect me and his children and I let him. He sees dangers that I miss, and I listen and try to heed his warnings, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shrivel up at every fear that pops up in my head. Some of that stuff I gotta ride like a wave!
These two things in particular, that Andelin teaches attract and fascinate men, are simply contrary to the teachings of Islam as taught by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He taught women that one day we may have to fight along side our men for the sake of Islam. He taught us of the women in the Bible like Mary and Hagar who were strong and fearless and stood their ground in the face of adversity. He reminded us that when Jesus was crucified and the disciples had turned away from him, it was women who stood by him and continued to propagate the faith after he was gone. Fear and weakness is not taught to the women in the Nation of Islam. My parents NEVER taught me to be afraid of ANYTHING and they both told me to be strong, physically, mentally and physically.
So I must respectfully disagree with Ms. Helen Andelin on these points. I don't believe that accepting these things as a part of our character as women is a good thing for anyone.
I would love to hear some of your thoughts and these points as well. Do you agree or disagree? Is there some sort of compromise that can be made? Can a women take low for the sake of her husband but remain strong in her right? Should she play the damsel in distress to win the affection of a man? What do you think?
