SWEET? A Rant

I went to a wedding in a baptist church yesterday, and was reminded that I am going to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my personal savior, and that a woman should be meek, mild, sweet, obey her husband, and allow him to lead. I think the word SUBMISSIVE was used a dozen times in the wedding ceremony. Everyone just kept saying how "sweet" the bride is, so sweet, always sweet, sweet sweet sweet. She is really sweet, and she is going to be great in whatever she tries her hand at, I like her a lot, and this whole rant has nothing to do with her. This is what this rant is about: I am not sweet.

I am the opposite. I am a leader. I am bold, I am strong, I am spicy, I'm loud, I'm messy, and I'm aggressive. While sitting at the reception, Nevie told me, "MOM! You are so INTENSE!" It was meant as an insult and intended to make me shut up, but it felt like a wrongness being pointed out about who I, fundamentally, am.

I gave this some thought last night when I was laying in bed. Am I a bad wife? Is a women really supposed to NOT lead? Be quiet? Be sweet? Submit? I mean, it is a very old book, The Bible, and a lot of people like it. Is my boisterous, forthright, Make-It-Happen personality really bad? My jeans and my work boots, my laugh and my opinions, my adventurous spirit and my willingness to be out front, really bad?

It isn't just the Bible. It is at work, also. And at my inlaw's house. And now also from Nevie..."too intense."

I gave some thought to the sweet girls that I know. The pretty girls. The quiet, submissive, delicate girls that I know.The ones with a lot of hair and a lot of makeup and a lot of excitement about romance, and teddy bears, and bad pop music. I thought about it and I actually started to cry because I began to understand the difference between the sweet girls and myself. The sweet girls were taken care of, protected, shielded...and so were able to remain sweet.

The sweet girls weren't thrown into the fray. The sweet girls didn't have disease, death, birth, divorce, poverty, adventure, disaster, addiction, sex, drugs or rock and roll. The sweet girls stayed sweet because their culture kept them behind a veil, their parents, their school, their religion, whatever. Other people deal with things for them. That is how they remain sweet.

OTHER PEOPLE DEAL WITH THINGS FOR THEM.

When you submit, you allow other people to make your decisions. When you do not lead, you follow. When you are sweet, you do not voice your opinion, and other people run your life.

In my experience, being sweet is something that happens when a girl is very young. When I was very young, my mom was sick, and my dad struggled with addiction. I moved three thousand miles from home, I got married to an emotional torturer of a man, was divorced with two kids at 23, and became very financially limited. None of those challenges allowed me to "submit" because a leading man was going to handle it. I HAD to handle it. I HAD to be out front. I HAD to make noise. I HAD to demand. I HAD to argue and defend myself. If I had remained sweet, I would be dead in a ditch right now.

Sweet is a luxury of a woman who is very secure. And then I thought, what bastards the people of the church are to prize sweet above all else, because you can't stay sweet, or accommodating, or submissive if you really are riding the wild horses of life, can you? You really can't stay sweet if no one is pampering you. You really can't stay sweet when you are hungry. Or your kids need medical care and you have no insurance. Or your ex husband is trying to beat in your door. Or your father is incarcerated. Or any of the million real life things that happen to real life women. And what are these UNSWEET WOMEN? Unbiblical? Unholy? Going to hell? No. The Unsweet women are fucking warriors, and fucking heroes. The unsweet women are getting shit done because they are forced to.

Treasuring and holding up as an example only the women who have not been tested by the realities of life on earth is really mean of the church. Really, really mean.

I was not sweet at 16, or 20, or 25. I was not sweet at 30, or 35. I would like to become more sweet. I am more secure now. I don't need to be at war. I don't need to demand, to bang my fist on bureaucratic counters. I would like for things to be easy enough for me to smile, accommodate others, and look pretty. I would like to think about what I wear, and making things lovely, and being cutesy with my husband.

Again, I repeat, Sweet is a luxury of a woman who is very secure. Unsweet women are fighting at all the wars of life, as they should. As they have to. As they should be proud to do.

Love and light,
Your friend,
Hil