|
 |
|
|
|
My experience in the evangelical church is that feminism might as well be the f-word: considered disgraceful within sacred walls. If it is employed from the pulpit, I have almost always heard it as a word of suspicion, dropped into the context of discussing abortion, lesbians, or the feared feminazis intent on emasculating the world’s men. In short, the word is squeezed into a very narrow space of religious shaming, and thus it can be neither engaged nor critiqued well.
In using the word to identify myself, I wonder already about your immediate reaction; my hunch is that most of us are programmed to have a visceral response. From my 13 years in the evangelical church, I have seen the grimaces of many men when I speak it. And I admit, the word these days can be coated with contempt, shutting out rather than inviting dialogue. If you are a man who has heard feminism only as a weapon to emasculate, then you are probably already shifting in your seat and bracing to protect yourself. If you have heard the word only to strip you of your own voice, then you may not know how to hear mine.
To a different degree, calling myself a feminist has similar discomfort to calling myself a Christian in a world where “Christian” seems to connote a pantheon of political agendas that are foreign to my own understanding of Jesus. And yet, for me to drop the word “Christian” is to no longer participate in reclaiming it. Perhaps you have struggled with this very tension: how do we use words that hold something of our vision, yet have been used to exclude or create misunderstanding? What do we do with words that must stay in movement to be vital, yet so often are petrified into ideological stonewalls?
Feminism has never been an easy word, all too often given categorical usage that does not speak to its diverse meaning and history. The French-descended term was actually first used in the U.S. by a small group of suffragists in the early part of the century. Now, historians apply the word retroactively to also include the so-called “first wave” feminism of the mid-1800’s, a time when people like John Stuart Mill and Elizabeth Cady Stanton began to draw on Enlightenment principles to argue for women’s participation in education and democracy. Yet, undeniably the term gained most of its notoriety–and its enemies– from its use in the so-called Women’s Movement in the 1960’s and 70’s, a time marked by controversies that cut to the marrow of family and societal assumptions about sex and gender.
It is important to realize that these historical movements and the current feminist agendas are never just about gender but are always textured by economics, religion, race, and class (1). Thus, among African American women, it has been a long fight to show white women that feminism must be a movement for all women, not just those with a privileged skin color. Among working class women, it has been a battle to earn equitable wages, so that women who need to can better provide for themselves or their families. Among homeless women, feminism has helped us see how women from diverse economic status can end up without resources when fleeing domestic violence. In global settings, feminism has taken on even more expressions. In places in Africa, it has started grassroots efforts to educate communities about the health dangers of female genital cutting. In Afganistan, it has advocated for girls’ rights to go to school. In Thailand, it asks that the international community has eyes to see the crisis of women and girls trafficked into sexual slavery. To assume feminism is simple or monolithic is to misuse the term, for advocacy for the human rights it addresses is always shaped by contextual variables.
Yet, so often feminism is spoken of as though it were simple– especially from evangelical pulpits that miss its complexity and equate it only with “anti-biblical” language. The word triggers deep fears, and perhaps rightly so. Feminism has indeed undermined traditional, culturally sacred views of femininity. It has entered deeply controversial issues, from abortion to homosexuality. It has always been intent to disrupt, to call attention, to ask us to see something we have not seen before. In addressing the harm of gender hierarchy, it has both pioneered boldly and failed boldly. Yet one thing it has done remarkably well: feminism has brought into the light the ubiquitous interplay of power and gender, and has given us a new lens to see the harm that lives within our historical system.
For Christians, the struggle to understand feminism will journey through Scriptural text and hermeneutical lenses. We talk about our families, our churches, and the Bible and wrestle to make sense of how to think about gendered ways of being. Yet, within our dialogue on “what the Bible says,” we also bring our cultural inheritance, family of origins, and personal experiences, even if we never name them as present. We can pull proof-texts from sacred manuscripts and often miss the interwoven complexities of text and interpretation. Our gaze narrows the more defensive we get: we erect theological and relational stonewalls and fail to see what gets assigned to peripheral vision. In efforts to protect and defend, do we not see how feminism has profoundly gifted the church?
Why has the church for most of its history failed to address “feminist” issues like domestic violence and rape? (2). Why did feminists need to make us aware? There seems to have been a limited discourse– a disturbing absence– of discussion from the papacy or pulpit on issues that tend to be more specific to a women’s suffering (3). Furthermore, early church fathers were notorious for their misogyny, abetting from the beginning a legacy of religion and sexism. Tertullian pronounced women as the “devil’s gateway” based on his reading of Genesis; his exegesis has a great deal of company among the church fathers (4). Clearly, whether God used people inside or outside the church, there was work to be done to restore the imago dei (5). Thus, ultimately my concern in this letter is not about whether you criticize the downfalls of a complex movement or how you do or do not argue Biblical texts for understanding gender.
My concern is whether we have forgotten to say thank you.
Which brings me to my hopes. If we can express gratitude well, perhaps we will have more vision to critique well. For myself, my largest critique of feminism within the church is its struggle to be invitational, particularly with men. Yet, if it has constructed walls, my longing is to tear them down, walk through the ruins, and meet you. I long to tell you that if feminism has ever said you are not needed, it has failed. If it has written off the value of your voice, it has not honored you. If it has sought to dismiss the complexity of the differences between a man and a woman, it has denied something of the mystery of God who created both to reveal glory.
I will meet you with the rubble at our feet. But then I ask you: will you look down with me to the remnants of the wall and listen to the cries of its stones? Stones that built the 19th amendment, so 50% more people could participate in democracy. Stones that brought equal opportunities for education, so our mothers could go to college. Stones that asked for rape to be a crime in the cultural conscious, not silenced violence. Stones that cried out for a voice, so that their own experiences of life could be seen. Will you stand beside me and feel the weight of such stones in your hands: will you listen long enough to imagine how a woman’s world and history may operate very differently from yours? If you can have such curiosity, then you might understand why I am still a feminist.
I will continue to be a feminist- to speak for the rights of the world’s daughters- until African girls’ genitals are no longer mutilated to assure systems of marriage, economics, and virginity (6). When hundreds of thousands of women and girls are no longer trafficked into sexual slavery every year (7). When poverty is not disproportionately affecting women and girls because of lack of access to education and jobs. When violence at the hands of their partner is no longer a major cause of death and disability for women ages 16-44 around the world (8). When domestic violence is no longer hurting 1 in 4 women in America (9), statistics that have been reported equal in religious communities as secular (10). When teenage girls in America no longer are marketed to internalize an “ideal” body that is airbrushed, curveless, and hungry. When I no longer live in a culture where it is estimated that 1 in 5 women are raped (11). Because in 2007 such harm is still allowed against the world’s daughters, feminism still must have a voice. Will you join me and other feminists in advocating for human rights?
I have addressed my concerns to men not to shut out the voices of women, but because I see a particular need to engage Christian brothers in the conversation. Furthermore, I ironically care little whether or not you ever embrace this disputed word. What is important is that you are willing to engage. I ask that you pay attention to why gender equality matters so that we may better partner together; I ask that you see harm and allow yourself to feel heartache; I ask you to offer the voice of your unique perspectives and bring the value of your experience into a dialogue about what it means to be men and women in the church. Your participation matters– even just the simple willingness to listen well– for there is something to rebuild together. There is a new partnership to create.
I recently met a man who is both knocking down the walls of feminism and seeking to build something new with its stones. His organization is passionate about teaching young men about domestic and sexual violence and inspiring them to take part in a culture’s healing. He teaches on the media’s depiction of male aggression. He explains how our culture fosters violence towards women. He shares about his daughter’s rape. And with tears in his eyes, he said something this feminist will never forget. In humility, he critiqued what he saw as the downfalls of feminism, and then he stopped and said two simple words– thank you. He said thank you to the feminist leaders who had the courage to go before him, so that he could see more and engage more. His tears brought my own, and gave my own heart a moment of redemption. I had never heard a Christian man say thank you before.
1. Professor Estelle Freedman at Stanford University makes this point repeatedly in her lecture series on “Feminism and the Future of Women.” The lecture series is available through the Modern Scholar, © 2004 by Recorded Books, LLC.
2. Marie Fortune, in her book Sexual Violence, develops this point further in discussing the church’s historical sin of omission in failing to address rape as a crime against women. She researches back through church history to reveal how and why the church has neglected to advocate for rights of survivors of sexual violence.
3. It is important to realize that men also experience domestic violence and rape. Though the numbers are much lower, it is important to recognize, especially because it is so often a culturally silenced experience for men.
4. The longer quote is as follows: “Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child's play to you. You deserved death, and it was the Son of God who had to die!” (Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, p 58).
5. “Imago dei” is the theological concept that both men and women are created in the image of God, as Genesis explicitly narrates in the creation story.
6. It is estimated that 130 million women alive today have gone through this practice of genital cutting, mainly in Africa and the Middle East. (Referred to by General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006. 39.)
7. Some statistics put this number in the millions. (UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project, 2004.) http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Trafficking/project/Graph_Worldwide_Sept_2004.pdf.
8. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2002, Recommendation 1582 on Domestic Violence against women.
9. Tjaden, Patricia & Thoennes, Nancy. National Institute of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” 2000.
10. Christopher G. Ellison, John P. Bartkowski, and Kristin L. Anderson. “Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence?” Journal of Family Issues, no. 1, January 1999, 96, 104.
11. Many organizations actually will put this number at 1 in 4. Rape statistics are difficult to verify, because so many rapes go unreported. (Referred to by María José Alcalá. State of World Population 2005. The Promise of Equality: Gender Equity, Reproductive Health and the Millennium åDevelopment Goals. UNFPA. 2005. 65.)
Kimberly George is a student, writer, and teacher living in Seattle, WA. She blogs at faithandgender.blogspot.com. This article was originally posted in May, 2007 on BurnsideWritersCollective; All copyrights were retained by the author in its posting.
|
This was a very interesting and well written article. But I feel that a few comments are warrented.
First, since the author is a teacher and at the end of the article, fails to do just that. When there is a male who is teaching other men about the things feminists have been fighting for years, that man and his organization ought to be uplifted, not kept in the dark by keeping his name and organization a mystery. If there is a group with good information specifically for men on these issues, as many people as possible ought to know about them.
Second, I must say that Ms. George is right about the misogny being displayed in the church. That being said, as time goes on and the people in the church learn more and more about gender, I think (at least for me personally) gender issues are less important and they are in the process of becoming Christian issues. When we keep something like domestic violence as a "feminist" issue, we resign ourselves to fight it out first between the sexes as opposed to fighting it as people of faith with a common goal.
I know a lot of feminists who I go to seminary with. They are brilliant, caring people who constantly remind everyone of the plight of many helpless people across the world. I just wish that I wasn't always treated like I was 10 steps behind them in the fight...but maybe like 2 or 3 steps.
Matt! Thanks so much for what you brought to this article. I have noticed that since I wrote this article (it was originally posted last May on another site), my thoughts are continuing to evolve. I love where you went in your second paragraph: you are so right to point out that these issues can no longer be just "feminist" issues. I will definitely consider that point in my future writing, because moving these from feminist to Christian issues is so good for opening up the dialogue and not alienating groups who struggle with the connotations of "feminist." Thanks so much for your challenge to my thinking.
As far as your first paragraph and wondering why I did not uplift the name of the man and his organization, I wrote that anecdote in vague terms by his request. Given the nature of the assault to his daughter which he allowed me to write about, it was very important that I kept his identity and his organization totally confidential, so as to protect his daughter. However, in the past, he has allowed me to give out his name and organization to specific individuals who have wanted to contact him.
Thanks also for offering your thoughts on wanting to not be treated like "you are 10 steps behind." I apologize if the tone of the writing felt that way. It is always hard for me to know my audience and how familiar they are with some of these issues. But, I think your viewpoint is very valid and helpful for me to consider as I continue to think and write about this topic.
Thanks again for your engagement.
Actually, I believe your tone conveyed righteous anger, which is not the easiest of lines to walk. Its a good place to be, although I doubt many people can keep that feeling very long. Eventually one gives up or turns to regular anger. I would be interested in your viewpoint on how feminism will grow into post modernism as Christianity attempts to make the same push.
I think, since the 60's and 70's, men have been taught to look at issues with a feminine lens (which was very much needed). Now, it's my guess that the post modern group will need to look at the same issues, but attempt to see what different views both women and men bring to the issue and go from there.
Overall, it will be an interesting journey. I just hope that in 25 years when I'm 50 I will remember to look back and see how far Christians have come. Until then, I guess I'll just start reading your blog.
Thanks for the quick response.
Matt- Yes, you are probably right in seeing some of my (hopefully) righteous anger in the article. I admit I am writing about these issues in Seattle, which while being a rather “liberal” city, has a very influential pastor (Driscoll) who tends to mock and dismiss feminism. And while I certainly don’t embrace everything about the feminist movements, I feel desperate at times for evangelical communities to understand more deeply the necessity of the “Women’s Movement” (which feels like a bit of a misnomer to me, as these issues are about men and women.)
As far as postmodernism and feminism, I totally agree that the next step has to be greater partnership between men and women. I think that while many women are searching for a voice to represent their experiences, many men are too, and somehow hope will be found in hearing one another better.
I wonder if men these days often feel disoriented in a “post Women’s Liberation” culture; while many of the traditional stereotypes of masculinity are being deconstructed, I don’t know that the culture is offering men much to build new constructs (the images in the media are just not that helpful, and I think the so-called “Biblical Manhood” by Grudem and others doesn’t do much justice to the complexities of the biblical text or the culture.)
I would love to have your voice on my blog. I started it very recently, hoping to gather a community of people wanting to struggle through these questions. Thank you again for your responses. I so much appreciate both what you bring and how you bring yourself.
Ms. George,
Thank you for challenging the church, and men in the church, to wake up. Unfortunately, much of the church is afraid to deal with anything uncomfortable or challenging. It has only been a few years since it has been willing to address booming issues like pornography, and even then only in pockets of the church. A colleague of mine recently gave audience to a number of GLBT individuals who discussed their pain, abandonment, and eventual evacuation from within the church. Unfortunately, the church still has a long way to go in facing difficult issues.
With that said, I feel that your second paragraph explains the first, and as such, why on earth would the church respond differently than you described? Should it? Because of the movements that came before us, there is a connotation of radical activism in the word “feminism,” and as a result, it is understandable that people who view the term that way suspect that those identifying themselves as feminists embrace that radicalism in some form or another.
I do cringe at the F-word, which is not to be confused with an F-bomb. In fact, the term “feminism” or worse yet, “feminist” is far more frightening and offensive to me than an F-bomb will ever be. I can hardly hear the word “feminist” without fearing feminazi, then feeling like I have to do the work to determine just where said feminist stands. Worse yet, “feminism” conjures up flashbacks from the film “Wicker Man” starring Nicholas Cage, Ellen Burstyn, and a whole island full of feminists and their eunuch slaves.
Having admitted that, “programmed” and “visceral response” still sound pretty condescending. I can, and do, think. Yet, any programming or visceral response I have to the terms “feminist” and “feminism” stem from the feminists themselves, not the church. The sound of the word “feminism” doesn’t suck my brain out and leave me with nothing but a primordial panic response. But it does cause me to question the motives and legitimacy of those involved, and often reeks of stagnant (or even adopted) victimization. In no way does that statement mean that I am insensitive to the social and cultural patterns that have plagued women almost universally. In fact, the opposite is quite true. I just believe that there is an enormous difference between responding to a serious need to solve some very unfortunate and tragic human issues (that have to do with varying degrees of the victimization of females) and “Feminism.”
I love the fact that you likened this semantic problem to the term “Christian” because they do share the same problem. “Christian” has become a term that is about as comfortable to wear as porcupine slippers. Again, because of the feared response of those who hear it to too many of those who wear it. If someone says they are a Christian, it doesn’t mean a whole lot to me until I speak with them for a while. Many years ago I worked in the shipping/handling industry. One client that shipped his audio systems and equipment through our company had a standing order for us: Any shipment that was addressed to a church must be shipped C.O.D. because churches were the least reliable for payment. He had been burned too many times, and this was how he was forced to run his business. I want to vomit when I turn on the T.V. and see so many preachers making a virtual mockery of the scriptures I rely on for truth.
I believe that the church ignored issues relating to women for many of the same unfortunate reasons they ignored other social and personal issues like alcoholism, adultery, homosexuality, gambling, molestation, etc. Some of these reasons may have been pride, fear of sanctions, fear of the loss of power and control, fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of losing parishioners, fear of losing money, fear of confronting someone and therefore stepping out of a comfort zone. Fear makes individuals impotent and the church has demonstrated its social (though not political) impotence for centuries. It even feared the scriptures in the hands of the populace. Why? Because of control. Women have been held down by men forever because men are scared to death that if women ever broke loose, men’s comfort would be at stake (and other reasons). The church, being manned by, well, men, had the backing of the scriptures (as they used them) and who was going to argue with that? Not the men.
Worse than ignoring the issues was the occasional “blame the victim” approach. Though it’s not the church, we see that example in Saudi Arabia even as I write. A woman was raped by several officers who pulled over the car she was riding in. She is being charged, and may be sentenced to several years in prison for being in a car with a man to whom she is not married. There may be some consequences for the rapists, but she will do more time than they will. There have been times where the church has been equally corrupt. There is no excuse. It is shameful that it took individuals, like Stanton, who had to deny their beliefs in order to affect the changes that should have been prompted by those who bear the truth. Socially, we have them to thank (though I might question whether or not it was the work of God directly).
I am a devout believer in Christ Jesus, and believe more strongly than most people I meet in the active, intimate, interconnected role of a church body in the lives of each other. Yet, theology aside, I don’t want to be associated with what the term “Christian” has become, over the centuries or in present day (and this only addresses the U.S.). I am still wrestling with your statement re: the topic of a need to reclaim the term “Christian.” I do call myself a Christian, but I would shed it with no shame or guilt of denying my lord. If it came down to it, I would replace the term with something more descriptive. Likewise, I have difficulty understanding why, in light of the diversity of the term “feminism” that you refer to, anyone (especially Christians) would want to be associated, however loosely, with some of the figures who were not only identified with feminism but virtually define it.
Unless you are only sharing part of your burden for the condition of women, your focus of concern (in this article) is on the more graphic issues: rape, domestic violence, culturally traditional genital cutting, sex trafficking and slavery, and blatant educational discrimination. I guess my point is this: Labels and terms are used to succinctly identify an object, issue, ideology, or whatever. Why use a label that burdens the bearer with the distraction of the possibly futile task of defending the label. All of these issues are tragic and they all have at least one common factor: the victims are females. This common factor does not mean that an advocate for justice in even all of these issues is, or needs to be, identified as a feminist. These are human issues with a common victim. The challenges are, “What is the real issue?” Is it justice for these victimized women and prevention for those to follow, or is it redefining and/or defending a term that cannot possibly contain the diversity of the issues and ideologies that have adopted it? Do you care because they are victims, or do you care because they are women? That may be the distinction that gets in the way of the term “feminism” for many people.
Tell me where to meet you and I’ll work beside you on any of these issues. Tell me you’re a feminist and I, along with millions of others, will be bogged down in the manure that stands in the way of actually doing anything about any of the issues. Who cares if you are a feminist? It sounds like a selfish, broad, cold political lobby with a lot of old beat up baggage. Who cares that you are burdened and ready to do something about sex trafficking and slavery, domestic violence, equal pay, genital cutting, rape, domestic prostitution, forced illiteracy, etc.? Lots of people; even in the church. Teach these issues and you will have support. People will be moved to act, write checks, or who knows what, but they will be moved.
You wrote, “To assume feminism is simple or monolithic is to misuse the term, for advocacy for the human rights it addresses is always shaped by contextual variables.” Use the contextualized variables instead! It is they that have meaning and value, and they come on their own merit, without history and presuppositions. Part of your point seems to be that the term is misunderstood, and I agree. I would push the point and say that because of the reasons for why the term is misunderstood, perhaps it is time to replace it. It has outgrown its utility. I admit that I have not read widely on this subject, but I have read some articles, like yours, that are thoughtful, informative, and challenging. What I haven’t read yet is those same brilliant minds promoting replacement terms that are as thoughtful and challenging as their writing. If “feminism” is an adequately accurate or even satisfactory term to represent their burdens for the injustices in the world, then I am challenged again with the task of discerning their true motivations.
While I will be counted with those who still do not like the terms, consider me engaged. I hope that as I continue to read articles like yours, I too will better understand the ways that I oppress others. However, I will not carry guilt for being born a white American male (I don’t think anyone is asking for that, but as you can see, I’m still a little bit gun-shy). If my response feels like I learned nothing, please be assured that I did; I just decided to focus on the church and the terms in my response.
I will end by saying that I love the imagery that frames your challenge to us men, and that challenge is where my thoughts will be focused as I continue to process your article. You can also rest assured that on Monday when I return to school, my Christian feminist co-worker will straighten me out where I have gone astray.
Thank you for the prompt, and may God continue to bless you.
Robert, Thank you so much for your response. I want to speak first to the issue of terms and then move on to addressing what seemed to be the heart and spirit of your reflection.
We are caught between needing to hold the tension of words; needing to create new words; and needing to get past our arguments about language to get down to the work of the Gospel. As you have pointed out so well, a label can be more problematic than helpful; it can also distract from the truer issues that are begging to be addressed. I hope that after reading my article the focus for readers is not just around the disputed term “feminism,” and I thank you for drawing attention to the truer matters at hand. In talking to you, I would gladly surrender the term if that helps create better dialogue between us. Your comment on why I would use a word that has such messy, difficult meaning is very compelling. Perhaps, in my career as a writer and teacher, I will one day cease to use the word; for now, however, I am still wrestling with how its provocative nature demands that we learn to look at historical and political movements with more complexity. And, as far as the word “Christian,” I am in a similar bind as you, but something in me says, “Wait…I want to be part of bringing life and hope and grace to the meaning of “Christian.” I don’t want the word to be hijacked by those who use it primarily to judge, condemn, and moralize. I actually had a gay man once, who has experienced a great deal of ridicule from the church, ask me in a rather surprising moment to “please not give up on calling myself a Christian”: he needed to see the term redeemed. Something of the friendship we were experiencing together had given him hope that perhaps Christianity is more than just the judgments he had experienced.
Ok, if I can move from talking about terms to talking about what I saw in the heart of your response, this is what I want to say: you are clearly a man with much compassion, who engages the issues with thoughtful reflection and wants the conversation to arrive at the essential matters. Thank you so much for your words and what you have asked me to struggle with. I am left honestly desiring to understand what are the best ways to provoke the church to take more responsibility in issues of gender, power, and justice. That said, perhaps we could consider more how our own lives intersect these issues, and what are the steps each of us can make. I am encouraged by your words, because it seems clear to me that you are already striving for personal transformation and the kind of dialogue that invites action.
While there are some good things that feminism has brought to the table, namely defense of the helpless and abused, feminism has been a two edged sword affecting our society as much negatively as positively. It is feminism that we can thank for the holocaust of the unborn, over 40 million children who have had their lives taken from them in the womb since 1973. It is feminism that we can thank, to a large part, for the tremendous spike in divorce in the 70's, over 70 percent and the resulting devaluation of marriage. It is feminism that we can thank for the devaluing of the father in the household. Feminism, as it has affected the American family is as much to blame for the increasing poverty of women and children of divorce. The church has historically done a poor job of defending women. But feminism, for these evils, should also be ashamed.
LexAeternam,
It seems that you have American values confused with feminism. I believe that if you put an Americans right to freedom, they should, by definition, be allowed to have abortions. Might not be right, but America having freedom in choice allows for that.
It is American values which provide for the high divorce rate, of both sexes believing they are "entitled" to find the perfect person for them for the rest of their lives and they have the right to divorce their spouse whenever they feel. Men and Women are both equally to blame for such a staggeringly high percentage of failed marriages.
Perhaps it is feminism which has devalued the father in the household, but as the movement grows, hopefully it will not be simply about giving women equal rights/power/control, but seeing how both men and women will work in their new roles. When scales have been out of balance for so long, there are times when actions must be taken to balance out those scales, which leads to a lot of swaying before true balance is acheieved.
If we are to be ashamed of every movement which negative things have happened, then no movement would be successful.
Nice work, Kim! I like the notion that the church needs to think about how it might say "thank you" to certain aspects of feminism.
In response to the dialogue going on between Robert and Ms. George, re: the difficulty of the word "feminism," I wanted to propose a solution (although, it will be one with it's own problems, as well). Many of us can indeed agree (at the very least the author and all the respondents can) that the notion or word "feminism" carries such a high degree of baggage that the word has become nearly useless. Likewise, the word "Christian" has also lost so much of its meaning within the greater culture that it has become nearly useless. Dare I go as far as to say that the word "postmodern" has done the same - a word that has been used too often and incorrectly (sweepingly, as if to include every cultural ill), and that we may be better off to define ourselves (I assume most visitors to theooze are "postmodern") by some new term.
But I digress.
I want to propose a word that may be more at the heart of the justice issues being discussed in the article and comments thus far. Since "feminism" as a term (in my opinion) needs to be put into a peverbial storage locker, may I propose the word "humanism"? I know that this word comes with its own set of connotations and baggage, but does it not more accurately reflect what we all are really talking about here?
As Christian people (postmodern or not), our sacred task is to bring about justice, God's justice, to the world as much as we are able. We need to do this regardless of gender, race, sexuality, or any other dividing line that our minds may or may not put up. Our task, God's charge to each believer, is to bring an end to issues of poverty, rape, lack of education, and so on. I do not for a minute pretend that these issues have not impacted women more than men, and for that reason I am especially thankful that the UN Millenium Development Goals include the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women worldwide. But likewise they address the issues of children, the sick, the poor.
Just like our "sacred task" I mentioned above, the MDGs promote justice for all.
The Gospel is for all, and so any movement or system that defines itself as pro-woman instead of pro-humankind is crippled from the outset.
I, of course, realize that the term I have suggested (before I went on my MDG rant), "humanism" does come with its own limitations. First and foremost, how many Christians will instantly associate the term with "secular humanism" instead of treating it with the honesty it deserves? Those who don't go that route will somehow manage to accuse people who use the word "humanism" or "humanist" or being too Arian, too focused on the material, and if my experience has taught me anything, will tell us all just to pray for the poor and oppressed.
So the question I pose to you all is: Does the word "humanism" bring a healthier connotation? Does it help the discussion (and action!) more than "feminism"? Does it more accurately reflect what we are all trying to say?
Just my thoughts too late at night...
Geoff
As long as "Feminism" continues to promote and defend the murdering of children because they are inconvenient, it will continue to be seen as opposed to the Gospel. Abortion is perhaps the major Justice issue of our culture. "Feminism" may want to consider repenting prior to asking to be thanked.
Matt,
Freedom is never complete. Every law in every culture limits "Freedom," whether the law is against rape, theft, or excessive speed when driving.
You can't just make statements like "if people have freedom, they can x." Put any aberrant behavior into the x to see how silly that argument is. How about, "if people have freedom, they can use children for sex slaves?" Does that work for you?
Laws exist specifically to limit behavior. When the "Feminist" movement won its greatest victory; making abortion legal up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy, it changed our national identity and moral framework.
Personal freedom has always been held in tension with personal responsibility as American ideals. I believe they are also held in tension in the Bible. Don't blame the ideals for the imbalance.
Of course I can say if people have freedom they have x. Thats the whole point of freedom. The point of having these freedoms is that we get to chose what laws we wish to have.
We have chosen to make abortions legal while we have chosen to have a law against using children as sex slaves. That is the brilliance and awful truth of our system of government. Just because a group of women fought for a freedom does not mean they all ought to be grouped together.
When you blame the feminist movement for what might arguablely be a lapse in moral judgement, and refuse to see many of the other wonderful things it has done for women in the world, you condemn people who consider themselves to be a feminist by making them singular beings. That is similar to saying all muslims are terrorists or all Christians are to blame for the crusades.
Besides, if we as Christians got together and did something about the real problem instead of just hoping for the law to change, abortion would not be such a problem. When you start gathering your church to care for those women who consider having an aboriton and say that you will support that child with family, shelter, and school, and can try to do this on a massive scale, only then do we have the right to tell others that the freedom they have to abortion shouldn't be available to them. (If you care to look into it, the school which Milton Hershey established for orphaned boys might be a good model)
Instead of saying this nation ought to act like Christians, we should focus on actually being Christian. I am not saying these things to personally call you out, but it is a problem within our nation which we as Christians can no longer afford to merely pay lip service. Perhaps it is time for the feminist movement to look after possible mothers and their unborn children, but it should be something we all look to solve and stop looking to blame.
Kimberly, thank you for the article. Great examples in this comment string of what a difficult time even "progressive" Christians have with feminism. Lots of knees jerking...
I grew up a staunch Republican (I was loud and political at 13) but in my undergrad years, I saw the rampant abuse of young women by affluent, supposedly-educated men in my college and specifically in my fraternity - among the boys I called "brother."
Today I openly call myself a feminist. I would do so "with pride," but there is far too much in my own life to be ashamed of. Thank God there is grace.
Feminism and abortion rights are not synonymous - any more than Christianity and the Religious Right are.
On the other hand, it's interesting how easily men (like me, I suppose) righteously throw in the pro-life card, as if it cancels out all other injustices. The problem with the pro-life movement is its tunnel-vision on the sanctity of life. I'd rather see fewer abortions than "moral high ground" that gets us nowhere. The Clinton Administration showed us a decline in abortions because - at least to some degree - it worked to create solutions for "the least" in America. The Bush II presidency rebooted the climb in abortions.
I don't think abortion should be a women-only debate - nor should issues of gender and equality in society. But what seems lacking in so many comments and critiques of the Feminist Movement is a recognition by Christian men that we HAVE NOT walked in your shoes.
I have not walked in the shoes of a black man. I have not walked in the shoes of a woman.
We have to learn how to listen - REALLY LISTEN.
Thank you for the article, Kimberly. I'm thankful for the Feminist Movement. And I know the Seattle climate all too well - be strong up there (I'm down in Portland).
Peter
Despite the differences and conflicts that are arising, I am thankful for the passion of this dialogue: each of us, from our respective vantage points, is seeing something important. We each see in part and know in part, and therefore need the voices and vision of others to more fully live out the love of the Gospel.
For those speaking out strongly against abortion, I hear your passion for the lives of unborn children and I am thankful for what you are seeing. I would love to hear more: how as a Christian community can we do more? From your experiences being involved and speaking out on the issue of abortion, how have you seen Christians opening their homes to unwed mothers, creating a safe place to bring difficult decisions, fathering children who have no fathers? How are churches practically caring for the lives of unwed mothers, so that the mothers can better care for the lives of their children? Please, bring those stories from your own lives and your churches. I long to hear these stories. From my limited experience working in crisis pregnancy clinics, I have seen the beautiful work of men and women who are offering hope and care and food and ultra sounds to mothers. Which gets me excited…if the passion of Christians against abortion could be lived out in sacrificial love for individuals, we could bring life to our communities, and we would not need to change a law to do it.
I realize as I read that despite the disputes of these posts, we might just be allies. We struggle through what words mean, and we grieve the downfalls of historical movements, but there are so many things we are collectively for: compassion, human rights, mercy and justice. Which I why I very much appreciate Peter’s invitation to listen- really listen. There is too much at stake to not hear one another.
Thank you to each of you for your willingness to struggle, bring what you see, and dialogue with a desire to see more. On a personal note, your engagement means a great deal to me. I am grateful both for the ways I am being challenged and the ways I am being encouraged.
|
|
|
|
(11)
This was a very interesting and well written article. But I feel that a few comments are warrented.
First, since the author is a teacher and at the end of the article, fails to do just that. When there is a male who is teaching other men about the things feminists have been fighting for years, that man and his organization ought to be uplifted, not kept in the dark by keeping his name and organization a mystery. If there is a group with good information specifically for men on these issues, as many people as possible ought to know about them.
Second, I must say that Ms. George is right about the misogny being displayed in the church. That being said, as time goes on and the people in the church learn more and more about gender, I think (at least for me personally) gender issues are less important and they are in the process of becoming Christian issues. When we keep something like domestic violence as a "feminist" issue, we resign ourselves to fight it out first between the sexes as opposed to fighting it as people of faith with a common goal.
I know a lot of feminists who I go to seminary with. They are brilliant, caring people who constantly remind everyone of the plight of many helpless people across the world. I just wish that I wasn't always treated like I was 10 steps behind them in the fight...but maybe like 2 or 3 steps.
Posted by Matt | Posted at 11/24/2007 9:01 AMMatt! Thanks so much for what you brought to this article. I have noticed that since I wrote this article (it was originally posted last May on another site), my thoughts are continuing to evolve. I love where you went in your second paragraph: you are so right to point out that these issues can no longer be just "feminist" issues. I will definitely consider that point in my future writing, because moving these from feminist to Christian issues is so good for opening up the dialogue and not alienating groups who struggle with the connotations of "feminist." Thanks so much for your challenge to my thinking.
As far as your first paragraph and wondering why I did not uplift the name of the man and his organization, I wrote that anecdote in vague terms by his request. Given the nature of the assault to his daughter which he allowed me to write about, it was very important that I kept his identity and his organization totally confidential, so as to protect his daughter. However, in the past, he has allowed me to give out his name and organization to specific individuals who have wanted to contact him.
Thanks also for offering your thoughts on wanting to not be treated like "you are 10 steps behind." I apologize if the tone of the writing felt that way. It is always hard for me to know my audience and how familiar they are with some of these issues. But, I think your viewpoint is very valid and helpful for me to consider as I continue to think and write about this topic.
Thanks again for your engagement.
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 11/24/2007 1:17 PMActually, I believe your tone conveyed righteous anger, which is not the easiest of lines to walk. Its a good place to be, although I doubt many people can keep that feeling very long. Eventually one gives up or turns to regular anger. I would be interested in your viewpoint on how feminism will grow into post modernism as Christianity attempts to make the same push.
I think, since the 60's and 70's, men have been taught to look at issues with a feminine lens (which was very much needed). Now, it's my guess that the post modern group will need to look at the same issues, but attempt to see what different views both women and men bring to the issue and go from there.
Overall, it will be an interesting journey. I just hope that in 25 years when I'm 50 I will remember to look back and see how far Christians have come. Until then, I guess I'll just start reading your blog.
Thanks for the quick response.
Posted by Matt | Posted at 11/24/2007 5:29 PMMatt- Yes, you are probably right in seeing some of my (hopefully) righteous anger in the article. I admit I am writing about these issues in Seattle, which while being a rather “liberal” city, has a very influential pastor (Driscoll) who tends to mock and dismiss feminism. And while I certainly don’t embrace everything about the feminist movements, I feel desperate at times for evangelical communities to understand more deeply the necessity of the “Women’s Movement” (which feels like a bit of a misnomer to me, as these issues are about men and women.)
As far as postmodernism and feminism, I totally agree that the next step has to be greater partnership between men and women. I think that while many women are searching for a voice to represent their experiences, many men are too, and somehow hope will be found in hearing one another better.
I wonder if men these days often feel disoriented in a “post Women’s Liberation” culture; while many of the traditional stereotypes of masculinity are being deconstructed, I don’t know that the culture is offering men much to build new constructs (the images in the media are just not that helpful, and I think the so-called “Biblical Manhood” by Grudem and others doesn’t do much justice to the complexities of the biblical text or the culture.)
I would love to have your voice on my blog. I started it very recently, hoping to gather a community of people wanting to struggle through these questions. Thank you again for your responses. I so much appreciate both what you bring and how you bring yourself.
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 11/24/2007 6:20 PMMs. George,
Thank you for challenging the church, and men in the church, to wake up. Unfortunately, much of the church is afraid to deal with anything uncomfortable or challenging. It has only been a few years since it has been willing to address booming issues like pornography, and even then only in pockets of the church. A colleague of mine recently gave audience to a number of GLBT individuals who discussed their pain, abandonment, and eventual evacuation from within the church. Unfortunately, the church still has a long way to go in facing difficult issues.
With that said, I feel that your second paragraph explains the first, and as such, why on earth would the church respond differently than you described? Should it? Because of the movements that came before us, there is a connotation of radical activism in the word “feminism,” and as a result, it is understandable that people who view the term that way suspect that those identifying themselves as feminists embrace that radicalism in some form or another.
I do cringe at the F-word, which is not to be confused with an F-bomb. In fact, the term “feminism” or worse yet, “feminist” is far more frightening and offensive to me than an F-bomb will ever be. I can hardly hear the word “feminist” without fearing feminazi, then feeling like I have to do the work to determine just where said feminist stands. Worse yet, “feminism” conjures up flashbacks from the film “Wicker Man” starring Nicholas Cage, Ellen Burstyn, and a whole island full of feminists and their eunuch slaves.
Having admitted that, “programmed” and “visceral response” still sound pretty condescending. I can, and do, think. Yet, any programming or visceral response I have to the terms “feminist” and “feminism” stem from the feminists themselves, not the church. The sound of the word “feminism” doesn’t suck my brain out and leave me with nothing but a primordial panic response. But it does cause me to question the motives and legitimacy of those involved, and often reeks of stagnant (or even adopted) victimization. In no way does that statement mean that I am insensitive to the social and cultural patterns that have plagued women almost universally. In fact, the opposite is quite true. I just believe that there is an enormous difference between responding to a serious need to solve some very unfortunate and tragic human issues (that have to do with varying degrees of the victimization of females) and “Feminism.”
I love the fact that you likened this semantic problem to the term “Christian” because they do share the same problem. “Christian” has become a term that is about as comfortable to wear as porcupine slippers. Again, because of the feared response of those who hear it to too many of those who wear it. If someone says they are a Christian, it doesn’t mean a whole lot to me until I speak with them for a while. Many years ago I worked in the shipping/handling industry. One client that shipped his audio systems and equipment through our company had a standing order for us: Any shipment that was addressed to a church must be shipped C.O.D. because churches were the least reliable for payment. He had been burned too many times, and this was how he was forced to run his business. I want to vomit when I turn on the T.V. and see so many preachers making a virtual mockery of the scriptures I rely on for truth.
I believe that the church ignored issues relating to women for many of the same unfortunate reasons they ignored other social and personal issues like alcoholism, adultery, homosexuality, gambling, molestation, etc. Some of these reasons may have been pride, fear of sanctions, fear of the loss of power and control, fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of losing parishioners, fear of losing money, fear of confronting someone and therefore stepping out of a comfort zone. Fear makes individuals impotent and the church has demonstrated its social (though not political) impotence for centuries. It even feared the scriptures in the hands of the populace. Why? Because of control. Women have been held down by men forever because men are scared to death that if women ever broke loose, men’s comfort would be at stake (and other reasons). The church, being manned by, well, men, had the backing of the scriptures (as they used them) and who was going to argue with that? Not the men.
Worse than ignoring the issues was the occasional “blame the victim” approach. Though it’s not the church, we see that example in Saudi Arabia even as I write. A woman was raped by several officers who pulled over the car she was riding in. She is being charged, and may be sentenced to several years in prison for being in a car with a man to whom she is not married. There may be some consequences for the rapists, but she will do more time than they will. There have been times where the church has been equally corrupt. There is no excuse. It is shameful that it took individuals, like Stanton, who had to deny their beliefs in order to affect the changes that should have been prompted by those who bear the truth. Socially, we have them to thank (though I might question whether or not it was the work of God directly).
I am a devout believer in Christ Jesus, and believe more strongly than most people I meet in the active, intimate, interconnected role of a church body in the lives of each other. Yet, theology aside, I don’t want to be associated with what the term “Christian” has become, over the centuries or in present day (and this only addresses the U.S.). I am still wrestling with your statement re: the topic of a need to reclaim the term “Christian.” I do call myself a Christian, but I would shed it with no shame or guilt of denying my lord. If it came down to it, I would replace the term with something more descriptive. Likewise, I have difficulty understanding why, in light of the diversity of the term “feminism” that you refer to, anyone (especially Christians) would want to be associated, however loosely, with some of the figures who were not only identified with feminism but virtually define it.
Unless you are only sharing part of your burden for the condition of women, your focus of concern (in this article) is on the more graphic issues: rape, domestic violence, culturally traditional genital cutting, sex trafficking and slavery, and blatant educational discrimination. I guess my point is this: Labels and terms are used to succinctly identify an object, issue, ideology, or whatever. Why use a label that burdens the bearer with the distraction of the possibly futile task of defending the label. All of these issues are tragic and they all have at least one common factor: the victims are females. This common factor does not mean that an advocate for justice in even all of these issues is, or needs to be, identified as a feminist. These are human issues with a common victim. The challenges are, “What is the real issue?” Is it justice for these victimized women and prevention for those to follow, or is it redefining and/or defending a term that cannot possibly contain the diversity of the issues and ideologies that have adopted it? Do you care because they are victims, or do you care because they are women? That may be the distinction that gets in the way of the term “feminism” for many people.
Tell me where to meet you and I’ll work beside you on any of these issues. Tell me you’re a feminist and I, along with millions of others, will be bogged down in the manure that stands in the way of actually doing anything about any of the issues. Who cares if you are a feminist? It sounds like a selfish, broad, cold political lobby with a lot of old beat up baggage. Who cares that you are burdened and ready to do something about sex trafficking and slavery, domestic violence, equal pay, genital cutting, rape, domestic prostitution, forced illiteracy, etc.? Lots of people; even in the church. Teach these issues and you will have support. People will be moved to act, write checks, or who knows what, but they will be moved.
You wrote, “To assume feminism is simple or monolithic is to misuse the term, for advocacy for the human rights it addresses is always shaped by contextual variables.” Use the contextualized variables instead! It is they that have meaning and value, and they come on their own merit, without history and presuppositions. Part of your point seems to be that the term is misunderstood, and I agree. I would push the point and say that because of the reasons for why the term is misunderstood, perhaps it is time to replace it. It has outgrown its utility. I admit that I have not read widely on this subject, but I have read some articles, like yours, that are thoughtful, informative, and challenging. What I haven’t read yet is those same brilliant minds promoting replacement terms that are as thoughtful and challenging as their writing. If “feminism” is an adequately accurate or even satisfactory term to represent their burdens for the injustices in the world, then I am challenged again with the task of discerning their true motivations.
While I will be counted with those who still do not like the terms, consider me engaged. I hope that as I continue to read articles like yours, I too will better understand the ways that I oppress others. However, I will not carry guilt for being born a white American male (I don’t think anyone is asking for that, but as you can see, I’m still a little bit gun-shy). If my response feels like I learned nothing, please be assured that I did; I just decided to focus on the church and the terms in my response.
I will end by saying that I love the imagery that frames your challenge to us men, and that challenge is where my thoughts will be focused as I continue to process your article. You can also rest assured that on Monday when I return to school, my Christian feminist co-worker will straighten me out where I have gone astray.
Thank you for the prompt, and may God continue to bless you.
Posted by Robert Ed. Werner | Posted at 11/24/2007 11:46 PMRobert, Thank you so much for your response. I want to speak first to the issue of terms and then move on to addressing what seemed to be the heart and spirit of your reflection.
We are caught between needing to hold the tension of words; needing to create new words; and needing to get past our arguments about language to get down to the work of the Gospel. As you have pointed out so well, a label can be more problematic than helpful; it can also distract from the truer issues that are begging to be addressed. I hope that after reading my article the focus for readers is not just around the disputed term “feminism,” and I thank you for drawing attention to the truer matters at hand. In talking to you, I would gladly surrender the term if that helps create better dialogue between us. Your comment on why I would use a word that has such messy, difficult meaning is very compelling. Perhaps, in my career as a writer and teacher, I will one day cease to use the word; for now, however, I am still wrestling with how its provocative nature demands that we learn to look at historical and political movements with more complexity. And, as far as the word “Christian,” I am in a similar bind as you, but something in me says, “Wait…I want to be part of bringing life and hope and grace to the meaning of “Christian.” I don’t want the word to be hijacked by those who use it primarily to judge, condemn, and moralize. I actually had a gay man once, who has experienced a great deal of ridicule from the church, ask me in a rather surprising moment to “please not give up on calling myself a Christian”: he needed to see the term redeemed. Something of the friendship we were experiencing together had given him hope that perhaps Christianity is more than just the judgments he had experienced.
Ok, if I can move from talking about terms to talking about what I saw in the heart of your response, this is what I want to say: you are clearly a man with much compassion, who engages the issues with thoughtful reflection and wants the conversation to arrive at the essential matters. Thank you so much for your words and what you have asked me to struggle with. I am left honestly desiring to understand what are the best ways to provoke the church to take more responsibility in issues of gender, power, and justice. That said, perhaps we could consider more how our own lives intersect these issues, and what are the steps each of us can make. I am encouraged by your words, because it seems clear to me that you are already striving for personal transformation and the kind of dialogue that invites action.
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 11/25/2007 1:38 AMWhile there are some good things that feminism has brought to the table, namely defense of the helpless and abused, feminism has been a two edged sword affecting our society as much negatively as positively. It is feminism that we can thank for the holocaust of the unborn, over 40 million children who have had their lives taken from them in the womb since 1973. It is feminism that we can thank, to a large part, for the tremendous spike in divorce in the 70's, over 70 percent and the resulting devaluation of marriage. It is feminism that we can thank for the devaluing of the father in the household. Feminism, as it has affected the American family is as much to blame for the increasing poverty of women and children of divorce. The church has historically done a poor job of defending women. But feminism, for these evils, should also be ashamed. Posted by LexAeternam | Posted at 11/25/2007 7:48 AM
LexAeternam,
It seems that you have American values confused with feminism. I believe that if you put an Americans right to freedom, they should, by definition, be allowed to have abortions. Might not be right, but America having freedom in choice allows for that.
It is American values which provide for the high divorce rate, of both sexes believing they are "entitled" to find the perfect person for them for the rest of their lives and they have the right to divorce their spouse whenever they feel. Men and Women are both equally to blame for such a staggeringly high percentage of failed marriages.
Perhaps it is feminism which has devalued the father in the household, but as the movement grows, hopefully it will not be simply about giving women equal rights/power/control, but seeing how both men and women will work in their new roles. When scales have been out of balance for so long, there are times when actions must be taken to balance out those scales, which leads to a lot of swaying before true balance is acheieved.
If we are to be ashamed of every movement which negative things have happened, then no movement would be successful.
Posted by Matt | Posted at 11/25/2007 10:42 AMNice work, Kim! I like the notion that the church needs to think about how it might say "thank you" to certain aspects of feminism. Posted by Hannah | Posted at 11/26/2007 10:51 AM
In response to the dialogue going on between Robert and Ms. George, re: the difficulty of the word "feminism," I wanted to propose a solution (although, it will be one with it's own problems, as well). Many of us can indeed agree (at the very least the author and all the respondents can) that the notion or word "feminism" carries such a high degree of baggage that the word has become nearly useless. Likewise, the word "Christian" has also lost so much of its meaning within the greater culture that it has become nearly useless. Dare I go as far as to say that the word "postmodern" has done the same - a word that has been used too often and incorrectly (sweepingly, as if to include every cultural ill), and that we may be better off to define ourselves (I assume most visitors to theooze are "postmodern") by some new term.
But I digress.
I want to propose a word that may be more at the heart of the justice issues being discussed in the article and comments thus far. Since "feminism" as a term (in my opinion) needs to be put into a peverbial storage locker, may I propose the word "humanism"? I know that this word comes with its own set of connotations and baggage, but does it not more accurately reflect what we all are really talking about here?
As Christian people (postmodern or not), our sacred task is to bring about justice, God's justice, to the world as much as we are able. We need to do this regardless of gender, race, sexuality, or any other dividing line that our minds may or may not put up. Our task, God's charge to each believer, is to bring an end to issues of poverty, rape, lack of education, and so on. I do not for a minute pretend that these issues have not impacted women more than men, and for that reason I am especially thankful that the UN Millenium Development Goals include the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women worldwide. But likewise they address the issues of children, the sick, the poor.
Just like our "sacred task" I mentioned above, the MDGs promote justice for all.
The Gospel is for all, and so any movement or system that defines itself as pro-woman instead of pro-humankind is crippled from the outset.
I, of course, realize that the term I have suggested (before I went on my MDG rant), "humanism" does come with its own limitations. First and foremost, how many Christians will instantly associate the term with "secular humanism" instead of treating it with the honesty it deserves? Those who don't go that route will somehow manage to accuse people who use the word "humanism" or "humanist" or being too Arian, too focused on the material, and if my experience has taught me anything, will tell us all just to pray for the poor and oppressed.
So the question I pose to you all is: Does the word "humanism" bring a healthier connotation? Does it help the discussion (and action!) more than "feminism"? Does it more accurately reflect what we are all trying to say?
Just my thoughts too late at night...
Geoff
Posted by Geoff | Posted at 11/26/2007 11:37 PMAs long as "Feminism" continues to promote and defend the murdering of children because they are inconvenient, it will continue to be seen as opposed to the Gospel. Abortion is perhaps the major Justice issue of our culture. "Feminism" may want to consider repenting prior to asking to be thanked. Posted by Nathan | Posted at 11/27/2007 5:00 AM
Matt,
Freedom is never complete. Every law in every culture limits "Freedom," whether the law is against rape, theft, or excessive speed when driving.
You can't just make statements like "if people have freedom, they can x." Put any aberrant behavior into the x to see how silly that argument is. How about, "if people have freedom, they can use children for sex slaves?" Does that work for you?
Laws exist specifically to limit behavior. When the "Feminist" movement won its greatest victory; making abortion legal up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy, it changed our national identity and moral framework.
Personal freedom has always been held in tension with personal responsibility as American ideals. I believe they are also held in tension in the Bible. Don't blame the ideals for the imbalance.
Posted by guest | Posted at 11/27/2007 8:03 AMOf course I can say if people have freedom they have x. Thats the whole point of freedom. The point of having these freedoms is that we get to chose what laws we wish to have.
We have chosen to make abortions legal while we have chosen to have a law against using children as sex slaves. That is the brilliance and awful truth of our system of government. Just because a group of women fought for a freedom does not mean they all ought to be grouped together.
When you blame the feminist movement for what might arguablely be a lapse in moral judgement, and refuse to see many of the other wonderful things it has done for women in the world, you condemn people who consider themselves to be a feminist by making them singular beings. That is similar to saying all muslims are terrorists or all Christians are to blame for the crusades.
Besides, if we as Christians got together and did something about the real problem instead of just hoping for the law to change, abortion would not be such a problem. When you start gathering your church to care for those women who consider having an aboriton and say that you will support that child with family, shelter, and school, and can try to do this on a massive scale, only then do we have the right to tell others that the freedom they have to abortion shouldn't be available to them. (If you care to look into it, the school which Milton Hershey established for orphaned boys might be a good model)
Instead of saying this nation ought to act like Christians, we should focus on actually being Christian. I am not saying these things to personally call you out, but it is a problem within our nation which we as Christians can no longer afford to merely pay lip service. Perhaps it is time for the feminist movement to look after possible mothers and their unborn children, but it should be something we all look to solve and stop looking to blame.
Posted by Matt | Posted at 11/27/2007 9:50 AMKimberly, thank you for the article. Great examples in this comment string of what a difficult time even "progressive" Christians have with feminism. Lots of knees jerking...
I grew up a staunch Republican (I was loud and political at 13) but in my undergrad years, I saw the rampant abuse of young women by affluent, supposedly-educated men in my college and specifically in my fraternity - among the boys I called "brother."
Today I openly call myself a feminist. I would do so "with pride," but there is far too much in my own life to be ashamed of. Thank God there is grace.
Feminism and abortion rights are not synonymous - any more than Christianity and the Religious Right are.
On the other hand, it's interesting how easily men (like me, I suppose) righteously throw in the pro-life card, as if it cancels out all other injustices. The problem with the pro-life movement is its tunnel-vision on the sanctity of life. I'd rather see fewer abortions than "moral high ground" that gets us nowhere. The Clinton Administration showed us a decline in abortions because - at least to some degree - it worked to create solutions for "the least" in America. The Bush II presidency rebooted the climb in abortions.
I don't think abortion should be a women-only debate - nor should issues of gender and equality in society. But what seems lacking in so many comments and critiques of the Feminist Movement is a recognition by Christian men that we HAVE NOT walked in your shoes.
I have not walked in the shoes of a black man. I have not walked in the shoes of a woman.
We have to learn how to listen - REALLY LISTEN.
Thank you for the article, Kimberly. I'm thankful for the Feminist Movement. And I know the Seattle climate all too well - be strong up there (I'm down in Portland).
Peter
Posted by Peter Walker | Posted at 11/27/2007 10:55 AMDespite the differences and conflicts that are arising, I am thankful for the passion of this dialogue: each of us, from our respective vantage points, is seeing something important. We each see in part and know in part, and therefore need the voices and vision of others to more fully live out the love of the Gospel.
For those speaking out strongly against abortion, I hear your passion for the lives of unborn children and I am thankful for what you are seeing. I would love to hear more: how as a Christian community can we do more? From your experiences being involved and speaking out on the issue of abortion, how have you seen Christians opening their homes to unwed mothers, creating a safe place to bring difficult decisions, fathering children who have no fathers? How are churches practically caring for the lives of unwed mothers, so that the mothers can better care for the lives of their children? Please, bring those stories from your own lives and your churches. I long to hear these stories. From my limited experience working in crisis pregnancy clinics, I have seen the beautiful work of men and women who are offering hope and care and food and ultra sounds to mothers. Which gets me excited…if the passion of Christians against abortion could be lived out in sacrificial love for individuals, we could bring life to our communities, and we would not need to change a law to do it.
I realize as I read that despite the disputes of these posts, we might just be allies. We struggle through what words mean, and we grieve the downfalls of historical movements, but there are so many things we are collectively for: compassion, human rights, mercy and justice. Which I why I very much appreciate Peter’s invitation to listen- really listen. There is too much at stake to not hear one another.
Thank you to each of you for your willingness to struggle, bring what you see, and dialogue with a desire to see more. On a personal note, your engagement means a great deal to me. I am grateful both for the ways I am being challenged and the ways I am being encouraged.
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 11/27/2007 4:57 PM