What do women want?

When I hear this phrase, my mind goes immediately to the Mel Gibson film 'What Women Want' (because, y'know, films...). For those of you unaware of the premise, Mel Gibson plays a chauvinistic business executive who, after getting electrocuted in the bath, is able to 'hear' what women are thinking. Much hilarity and eventual introspective naval gazing occurs as he navigates the implications of hearing what women really think. His initial reaction is to work out how he can manipulate this ability to his own end, reflective of his original inclination to objectify women. Eventually however, listening to the innermost thoughts of women leads to better relationships with his daughter, colleagues and potential love interests.

Of course we would probably do well not to read TOO much into this film. It makes some pretty unhelpful comments about how when a man is so attuned to a woman's thoughts and desires that he must be gay for example. Does it play into and reinforce frustrating gender stereotypes? Yes of course it does, but it was the year 2000 and there has been some progress in those 21 years. What this film does play on though, at a very fundamental level is that women want, and need, is to be heard honestly and authentically. The film allowed that to happen and played about a little bit with the potential impact pointing to some interesting observations about acceptable behaviour. However what is interesting to me is that the inner monologues in this film pointed to women censoring themselves around men, and men assuming that they know both what women want and what women think.

To address the second point first, the assumption that men know what women want can be reduced to our old friend objectification. Objectification has no need of nuance or complexity. It is said (generally by men) that women are complicated, and it is often not said without affection. However when pressed, that complexity is again reduced to "that which must never be named... hormones" or a perceived desire by all women for compensatory trinkets such as flowers, money, perfume and chocolate. Complexity by this version is a pretty cheap vision of what it actually means to be a deeply nuanced human being.

The second point about self-censoring is often one borne out of a desire to appear more desirable (one way or another) to another person. It can be applied to most aspects of our beings. We cover up and manipulate those parts of our bodies which we deem less appealing to others. We don't say what we always think because of a fear of what others might think of us. This is of course not without benefits - our sinful selves are often predisposed to being thoughtless and selfish - all have sinned and fallen short of Gods original plan. A degree of self censorship is therefore desirable in the right context. One of the fruits of the spirit is self-control and so bending and pruning our lives and characteristics to become more in line with Christ is desirable. Not saying the first thing that comes to mind is a spiritual endeavour and one to be pursued.

This is different to the self-censoring under discussion. In the film, there was a female porter who clearly had a bit of a thing for our hapless star. Her aggressively suggestive internal monologue was made amusing by the sheer fact that we just don't expect it to come from a woman. It objectified his body and it brought his character up short. And yet this sort of language is commonplace on streets where you live and in films and programmes you watch. It's sadly common behaviour, from men. 

Let me pause a moment to address the elephant in the room. Hashtag 'not all men'. Of course 'not all men'. However when in excess of 90% of all women (which means pretty much every woman you know) have experienced some form of male objectification, anywhere on the spectrum from men staring at your chest or making comments about your body through to sexual assault and rape, it's easy to see that this might not be an isolated issue relating to a few rogue blokes who don't know how to control their testosterone urges yet. 

'Not all men' has become a difficult topic to navigate because of course good men don't like to be generalised any more than women do. However when conversations in predominantly female spaces (feminist Instagram and other social media accounts) are frequently hijacked by men calling 'not all men' or even 'men get raped too' when women are sharing their experiences, it just becomes yet another example of women not being listened to and the narrative being switched to the male perspective. Of course men being sexually assaulted is extremely important (and men may also suffer in silence because toxic masculinity has made it virtually impossible to speak up), but is a thread or page where the objectification, rape and assault of women is being discussed the best place to bring it up? Possibly not. Pertinent to the discussion is the fact that the rape of men is by vast majority carried out by other men. More horrifying to note is that approximately 90% of those women (and men) raped, knew the perpetrator prior to the crime. Rape and sexual assault are not faceless crimes by unknown people in dark alleys. They are the ultimate violations of trust by known people.

Unfortunately the problem of not being listened to is further carried when trying to bring perpetrators of violent sexual crime to justice. Right now in the UK only around 3.5% of rapists are actually prosecuted, with another smaller number actually being convicted. The odds are stacked against women from the start. They don't report because they are afraid of not being listened to, or if it does go further, to have to repeatedly recount their experience resulting in continued trauma and potential of defence solicitors using tactics such as holding up their underwear in court as evidence against the victim in the rapists trial (2018 - the rapist walked free). The UK Victims Commissioner feels that what we are seeing in the UK now is effectively the decriminalisation of rape (2019-20 report).

Far from being liberating and respectful, listening is therefore weaponised in both it's witholding and in it's use against women. Sexual assault and rape are extreme examples. However if there is no trust that they will be (properly and authentically with no expectation or agenda) listened to for these extreme things, what chance is there in being listened to for the everyday? No small wonder then that to be genuinely listened to feels counter culture and surprising. This is further complicated by certain differences between the genders (yes I said it) and statistically speaking, women are more likely to be better listeners than men. But that doesn't let men off the hook. It certainly makes this harder, but when the goal is recognition of females as equal image bearers of God (Genesis 1:27 - something that both egalitarians and complementarians can generally agree on), then it is surely worth the effort.

So let's circle back. Why do women self-censor and how is this linked to listening? They self-censor because of the expectations on them to behave in a certain way. There are also expectations on men to behave in certain ways. I would argue that both self-censor in order to make themselves (one way or another) more desirable/acceptable to men. Women from a position of fear, cultural deference and religious obligation. Men from a position of competition (with other men), as well as cultural and religious expectation. Margaret Attwood noted that "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them" (paraphrased 1990) and again, while extreme (and history has borne out the truth of it, both before and since Attwood), it casts light on the different sides of the coin the sexes experience this. Both are at the unforgiving mercy of gender expectations but only one is physically in fear of the other. 

It is linked to listening because this is what women have been talking about and campaigning for a long time. It is now at the point where the information is out there to be found. Don't ask women what they want, this is not complicated. They have already told you and the Bible has already laid out explicitly how women should be treated and listened to. Jesus listened to and advocated for women - even by todays standards, Jesus was above reproach. Paul, a controversial figurehead when discussing women in the Bible actually advocated for women at a time when male dominance was the norm in Roman society. He elevated female leaders and womens' ministry simply by discussing them - forcing them to be heard (more on this another time). 

Listen. Without expectation and without prematurely formulating a response. 

Be interested. Without wondering why this is anything to do with you.

Examine yourself. Stow defensiveness at the door and curiously wonder what part you have played in weaponising listening (spoiler alert - everyone has)