There has been a new addition to the New York City courthouse. In a place normally reserved for historic lawgivers is a semi-human figure meant to represent female empowerment and, of course, the “need” for abortion.
Created by Shahzia Sikander, the statue is entitled “Now” and represents something significant in contemporary culture, and it is tragic.
Whether people realize it or not, a prevailing belief in modern culture is that being a woman is something to be overcome. In order to be empowered, women must become less feminine, culminating in the least feminine act possible, destroying one’s own child.
It is imperative to distinguish true femininity from today’s misunderstanding of femininity as a superficial depiction of women’s hobbies and clothing choices or as a caricature of an overly submissive, diminished woman. True femininity is robust and beautiful; it is living out the virtues as women for the glory of God and, as a result, being a blessing to others, and yes, particularly one’s family.
The statues surrounding “Now” are depictions of historical lawgivers, who impacted the development of western civilization. Not only is the statue not fully human, it is not an attempt to depict a real woman, with the exception of having a collar as a tribute to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Not one historical woman was judged worthy of receiving the honor by Sikander.
The statue has some resemblance to women in its figure, but it is then changed and warped into something nonhuman and nonfemale. Its hair forms horns and the arms become tentacles. The face is void and harsh. The statue clearly plays on Early Renaissance painter Sandro Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus in which the deity rises from a clamshell, but whereas Venus is the epitome of the feminine form, this one is deliberately smoothed over. It is a depiction of a neutered woman, a woman who must lose and transcend her femininity in order to be empowered.
Unfortunately, this is the way many women feel. Their femininity is a handicap to the achievements they view as most significant. Motherhood, in particular, is seen as a setback that must be delayed as long as possible. The hands of the statue are notably tentacles as well. They are unable to serve, to reach out to help others, or to lovingly hold a child. The face is intentionally untender. Sikander titled the statue “Now” in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The statue represents two great deceptions foisted upon women in modern society. To be empowered, women must intentionally diminish their femininity and to succeed in life necessitates delaying motherhood and, if necessary, sacrificing one’s own child. Far from empowering, this message treats femininity as inherently lesser than masculinity; it then is a worldview that can never affirm women as women.
Fortunately for women, while this is the prevailing view of modern society, it is not the only way to see femininity. The Christian faith offers a far better alternative for women. It is not by being less feminine that women have value; rather, womanhood is essential to the way they function in the world, and it is good to be a woman.
Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Women are not made in the image of God despite being female, rather both sexes uniquely live out the gift of being God’s image bearers as gendered persons, and it is part of the creation that God affirmed as “very good”. Both genders fulfill necessary functions for the kingdom of God that the other cannot, and both are equally valuable.
One unique function given to women is bearing children, new image bearers. Motherhood is neither a secondary aspect of life nort a lesser option for women. It is a privilege and a gift.
Modern society focuses very little on the eternal, instead glamorizing accomplishments that are fleeting. Alice von Hildebrand wrote in the Privilege of Being a Woman, “When the time has come, nothing which is manmade will subsist. One day, all human accomplishments will be reduced to a pile of ashes. But every single child to whom a woman has given birth will live forever, for he has been given an immortal soul made to God’s image and likeness. In this light, the assertion of [French social theorist Simone] de Beauvoir that ‘women produce nothing’ becomes particularly ludicrous.”
From its beginning, the church has been a place of refuge for women from a world that often is hostile to them. It alone puts femininity in its proper perspective. As von Hildebrand wrote, “By living up to their calling, women will succeed in guaranteeing a proper recognition of the unique value of femininity and its crucial mission in the world.”
Comment by David on February 21, 2023 at 8:59 am
The statue in question essentially takes the place of one representing the Prophet Mohammed that was removed because of religious objections. The remaining statues of lawgivers were shifted leaving the vacancy at the end. While I have no objection to the statue itself, I find it out of place as it is not of stone as the others and the subject is not legal.
The article tends to ignore the early Christian attitude that remaining single was good as Paul stated.
“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)
Comment by Td on February 21, 2023 at 8:30 pm
Over the past 2 decades, we have heard a lot about the crisis of manhood. But just as equally there is a huge crisis of womanhood that has become glaringly obvious in the last few years. How long can our society survive if it keeps telling women to not be women and keeps telling men to not be men?
Comment by Search4Truth on February 27, 2023 at 5:42 pm
Good job David, more information without any demonstration of the ability to reason.
Comment by Charles S. Oaxpatu on February 28, 2023 at 4:35 pm
Ms. Stewart is described as a “lay woman” from West Virginia. However, she never precisely defines “femininity” from her own perspective. Either she had much more in mind—-but did not say it—-or she thinks femininity equals copulating, XX-chromosome plumbing, birthing babies, and raising babies. Someone please tell me that she does not equate femininity with hat and that alone. Please tell God made women for more than just that alone. If that was the case, why even give them brains that can search out the far corners of physics, chemistry, engineering, and other academic fields. To not use such abilities in women for the betterment of all mankind is a waste of the many intellectual gifts God gives to women.
I sure hope Ms. Stewart does not define femininity, behaviorally speaking, as Scarlet O’Hara or June Cleaver. That would be tragic. I do not see Southern belles or the American women of the 1950s as models of femininity. I suppose Ms. Stewart sees femininity as “I spend all my time baking cookies for the church social and the kids at the local elementary school.” Then there is the Christian Fundamentalist and Conservative Evangelical definition of femininity, which can be stated as the famous phrase “…the primary purpose of all women is to tempt men. This is why God created them—to be a temptation and a stumbling block for men.” I reject that definition outright, and it shows just how little respect fundie men have for women.
This 70 year old man, raised in the 1950s and 1960s, loves the feminist women of today. I love highly educated women who work 40 hours per week in professional jobs. Smart women are fun, attractive, and easily hold up their end of any conversation. Intelligence is sexy—–period. I have been married to one of them for the past 44 years, and we raised two great kids together. Both kids are balanced and sensible adults today.
If Ms. Stewart wants to stay home, lay on the couch all day, watch soap operas, and be financially supported solely by her man, I have no particular problem with that if both agree. However, many women today are fat, untalented, brainless leaches who think femininity is a 1950s “free ride” through life. I do not care what anyone else says. Today…Today…Today it takes two full-time jobs to maintain a household, raise kids, and meet financial responsibilities. Some nights the man washes the dishes so mom can go to the PTO meeting—-and vice versa. Everyone shares in the work necessary to get things done, and I have no problem with that in my role as a United Methodist male. I support the American feminism of the past 50 years and the freedom from the man-defined cultural past modern women have achieved. I do not see it as an affront to God, and I very much doubt that God sees it that way. All modern women have done is to free themselves from the male tyranny that reigned over their lives across the past 2,000,000—-simply because the male party was always bigger and stronger than the female party in a marriage—-thus allowing all the “he’s” to create and evolve a worldwide human culture that reigns in brute tyranny over women and girls. The tyranny must come to an end—-NOW. If Ms. Stewart does not understand this, I would encourage her to join an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church for just one year so she can get a really good taste for why so many modern women are feminists. Prepare to be brutalized physically, mentally, and emotionally in that church—–because that milieu is where the new Global Methodist Church is headed.