There’s a delicious scene in the first episode of “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” Tina Fey’s comedy about a woman rescued from an apocalypse cult. Freshly liberated from their underground prison, Kimmy and the other hostages go on the “Today” show, where Matt Lauer asks them how they fell into captivity.
One of the women, Cyndee, says she was abducted while working at a restaurant. “Yes, I had waited on Reverend Richard a bunch of times at a York Steakhouse I worked at, and one night he invited me out to his car to see some baby rabbits, and I didn’t want to be rude so … here we are,” she says.
“I’m always amazed at what women will do because they’re afraid of being rude,” Lauer replies.
This is a joke that satirizes the double standard that allows men to be rude and assertive, but not women. Cyndee, who followed a strange man into his car out of a sense of social obligation, became a victim of this imperative for women to always be polite.
I like this piece because it illuminates our culture. I resist the implicit assumption that “equality” fixes everything.
The piece makes some important points about our filters. But there are more. Is it just equality we want?
It is never mentioned that in both of these cases the women hit the man first and that he retaliated. This can’t be mentioned because it violates a narrative. If we say in the FSU incident “a black man hit a white girl..” other narratives get triggered. Was race a layer here? There are always more layers.
This is not to say that the men don’t deserve the criminal and professional consequences of their actions, but if equality is your standard why was it OK for the women to hit the men in the first place? Was that not also battery?
Now it is obvious that these men are going to do considerably more damage to the women than they did to the men with their blows. Courts would take this into account. What they did went beyond justifiable self-defense. They rightly face consequences for their actions. That is vital information. My point is that there is more going on here than just “a double standard.” Do we really want just one standard?
These videos are not a call for equality. The answer is not making women stronger so they can knock the guy out on the first punch. The answer has to do with love, something neither side was exhibiting.
Better Call Saul: The best show in TV
“Better Call Saul” was recently called “the most morally complex show on TV.” Here Mike takes a beating from Tuco to put Tuco in jail. If you know the show the layers just keep going down. That’s like life. What happens on the surface is just the beginning.
Are women more holy? noble?
It’s also helpful to listen to some Oscar Wilde plays on the subject of men and women. He’s of course reflecting the 19th century idea that women were purer creatures. I don’t think that idea has really passed away, it has just changed.
There are other venues in which we regularly see men completely out-maneuvered by women. See Amy Schumer’s “Fight like a girl”
We might ponder what equality means and whether we actually want it or not, or should and how and when it is best applied and how and when it is best not.
A better conversation talks about what is appropriate. The Christian standard is love. Love takes into account many complexities that the blunt instrument of equality cannot factor. Love allows inequality for the sake of the weak. Love takes a blow and walks away without the demand to retaliate. Love sometimes requires a double standard. As CS Lewis said “equality is good medicine but bad food.”
Love conquers all.
