Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts

Friday, 14 December 2012

Two Books on Women

 

I recently read 'How to be a Woman' by Caitlin Moran followed fairly immediately by 'A year of Biblical Womanhood' by Rachel Held Evans. I'm glad I read them this way round! It struck me that there were some interesting differences and notable contrasts that I wanted to share with the world.

I think I might start backwards. Both authors conclude that there is not and shouldn't be a prescribed way to be a woman. For Evans book this felt like the natural conclusion to her discussion. I felt the narrative learnt from the experience of other women from a diversity of cultural experiences and approached such learning with a humble heart. Yet it stayed authentically itself and gave me as the reader permission to do so as well.

Moran's book however irritated me most of the way through. It was essentially an autobiography but despite it's beginning and conclusion about the diversity of female experience I couldn't help but feel I was being told that this was or should have been my experience as well. Especially the stuff around adolescents. 

Both books reference other women who have fought similar battles before and have begun to forge a way and in who's path we follow as well as contemporaries. Evan's does so with great respect and gratitude to those 'Women of Valour' both past and present. One of her final resolutions is to identify and praise women of valor. 

Moran by contrasts dismisses most of her contemporaries, including Object and even Greer as having become irrelevant.  The only woman who comes of relatively well is Lady Gaga.  While Evans writing humbly acknowledge's the work of those who have gone before. Moran writes 'When Simone de Beauvoir wrote one is note born a woman one becomes a woman - she didn't know the half of it.' Hmm.

Moran repeatedly says that woman have done very little (even nothing) over the last 100,000 years, while men she claims have made great achievements in science, art politics and repeatedly in her long lists she includes empire. I find it very problematic to list empire in with a list of great advancements without any deconstruction or critique of the very idea of empire. Evan's by contrast retells the stories of many great women's achievement both biblical and extra biblical. She also on occasion broadens her critique not just to hierarchy between genders but the idea of hierarchy at all in any context.

Both repeatedly use the word 'Lady'. I have written about my dislike of the word here. Evans however only ever used it in contexts where, had she been talking about men she may well have said gentlemen. Generally when she was talking about people and only once directed to the readers. Moran however got right up my noise by continually giving instructions to her readers preceded by calling them to attention with 'Ladies!'. 

Both authors while not writing a book about violence against women and the global situation do reference it. Evans to put her own struggles and difficulties in perspective. Moran to explain that the problem with modern feminism is that it is focused on these things while ignoring things like glossy magazines and pants being too small.

Both authors once mention the Vietnam war, both use it for illustrative purposes. In the case of both books I have forgotten what was being described! Evan's I remember said that some group of people discussed something - "Like veterans talk about 'Nam" I can't remember feeling it was inappropriate or offensive. I cannot remember the details of what Moran was talking about either save that it was about running away "faster than a Vietnamese boy covered in Nepalm". I wasn't expecting that sentence it kind of sprang at me from no where and made me feel positively sick.

Both authors discussed having children. Evan's wrote an honest and reflective account of her worries and fears about having children. She also explored issues around women's relationship with parenting and the difficulty of living in a world which defines women in relation to children and explored the duff theology in parenting as a woman's highest calling. Moran on the other hand wrote 'Childbirth gives women a gigantic set of balls'. To be fair on Moran this is not all she said and she did also point out that there are a variety of life experiences that can change and shape us. But it's almost that that makes these bizar one lines so problematic there is an inconsistency in her writing.

Both authors mention their vagina's. Evans in a discussion about teenage experience of church teaching on sex.  Famously there was big discussions about how that would affect christian bookshops and whether they were willing to stock the book or not. As far as I am aware there where no such discussions as to the inclusion of the c word which I can't even bring myself to write, but that's apparently what Moran calls her vagina.

Both books made me laugh out loud. Moran's book also made me shout and swear. Evan's book also made me cry. Moran's book left me with an overwhelming sense of frustration. Evan's book left me peaceful and wiser. 

Thursday, 9 August 2012

"Conservative christians" aren't the only ones with something to say...

I am unapologetically christian (and if you're into labels evangelical at that) and I am unapologetically feminist and socialist. This is not easy at the same time as being remarkably easy. I always say I am a feminist and a socialist not despite being a christian but because I am a christian - but that's a blog for another time.

Here I just want to try and explain why groups and spaces that only ever (or in the overwhelming majority of cases) refer to faith communities in terms of the 'religious right', are doing themselves and their causes no favours. I am in no way suggesting they stop exposing stupid things said by such groups but that they equally ensure they give the same platform  to faith communities with different perspectives. Here are the dangers I perceive with the current set-up:

1.) Firstly it gives an inaccurate portrayal of Britain's faith communities thereby spreading mis-understanding and miss trust and weakening community cohesion. What you say may be an accurate representation of a certain subset which is already very vocal - so why give them the microphone again? I know many many churches where it would be a brave person who admits that they vote Tory. Many christians are pretty left of centre. I can't speak for other faith communities but I'm sure the same is true - they are not all right of centre, but those voices that are not, are almost completely absent from those environments where I hear the 'religious right' condemned with huge regularity.

2.) Secondly it makes a group of people rather than an ideology the route problem. We need to confront and challenge the belief system if we are ever to change the world. And almost without fail when the 'religious right' or 'conservative christians' and blamed for a belief system I can think of several people with no faith who hold the same views.

3.) There is often a bad use of logic. I have very often heard people disregard an argument because its 'what christians believe'. Just because someone you don't like thinks one thing doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true!

4.) It plays straight into the hands of the 'this is a christian country' rhetoric. All those people out there who do not hold a genuine believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he came that we may be reconciled to God, to each other and to the earth, but who self define as christian for political motives are able to continue to wield political power. This is especially dangerous in our current climate. Because if you only present faith groups as right wing, you continue to feed that false perception, that this is a large group who have the hotline to God and face no criticism from within their community making them seem like a much larger group than they actually are and allowing those who do not genuinely have an active faith to align themselves with them.

5.) You alienate people like me, people who would like to be your allies. And I am very definitely not alone.

6.) You convince people the only option is to be religious + right or secular and left driving some away from faith and many away from the left. I know many christians who read right wing papers because they don't feel welcome elsewhere - if they did their politics might be very different.

We really need to change the understanding of faith and political views. I can't talk for other faith communities but certainly among the faith communities I'm part of 'conservative' christians are by far in the minority.  Most of us are desperately trying to see the world change in progressive ways, trying to be Christ-like, trying to see a just, equitable, sustainable world.

So next time you write or say something about 'conservative christians' or the 'religious right' could you just put in a sentence or two about what 'progressive christians' or the 'religious left' think. I would be very grateful.  Thanks.

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

The Real Man

I've just been listening to a discussion on yesterdays women's hour when a man who's name I forget actually said that if his wife had consistently earned more than him over the years his penis would have fallen off. Later on he said he knew it wasn't very popular but he did believe in the concept of 'the real man'.

I would just like to echo that I absolutely believe in The Real Man.

The one and only really real human man lived 2000+ years ago and His name was Jesus. Jesus was both fully god and fully human, he was the most human human ever to live, he was also anatomically male. He wept, cared for children, cooked, washed people's feet oh and was financed by a group of women.

This is a short little rant and I think this guy was arguing from an evolutionary point of view, but it reminded me how pervasive the quest to be a 'real man' also is in Christian culture, and I just want to say, men stop trying to be real men and fix your eyes on The Real Man, join the human calling to become more like Jesus, and don't worry about your penises dropping off - they probably won't.


Friday, 18 May 2012

Unsistered


Anyone who has tried to occupy the space of being both Christian and feminist knows how uncomfortable and painful it can be. Being in spaces where you want to belong, where you should feel solidarity and instead feeling in limbo, unable to bring your full identity into those spaces. 


Hearing the word "christian" or the word "feminist" spat out with venom and almost always connected to words such as "right wing" or "radical" (quite why christians should be using the word radical as a swear word is beyond me!) is isolating. I am sure it is not only christian feminists who have these experiences. I am sure many feminists are made to feel excluded in places where they should be welcomed.


I have listened and re-listend to this a talk entitled “Theapalooza: The Rhetorical Turn in the Third Wave of Biblical Feminism” Presented by Dr. Alena Amato Ruggerio (http://www.eewc.com/audio/) because I think it contains much powerful wisdom about how we can use rhetoric to bring great understanding and freedom to ourselves and the church as a whole. In this talk she says 


"It is a feminist act to create new symbols to correspond to feminist references." 


She then explores how as christian feminists we could first identify our common experiences or references and give them symbols (that is words). She describes doing this with her students in a secular context and they developed a word which I love: "femafision" which they defined as the experience of patriarchy pitting women against each other.


So I decided that I wanted to name what I believe is a common experience for christian feminists that is the experience of being disallowed through attitudes and prejudice to exist as both christian and feminist and I want to name this as being "unsistered".


I am unsistered when my church family feel the need to dissociate themselves from the women's movement when discussing women's equality. I am unsistered when preachers use phrases such as 'unlike radical feminism...' I am unsistered when people don't ask me about work because they are nervous of my politics; I am unsistered when there is a refusal to confront patriarchy and male privilege. I am unsistered when feminist medium only ever uses the word "christian" with the phrase "right wing" or "religious fundamentalists", I am unsistered when there is language that presumes the non-existence of God, I am unsistered when people of faith are assumed to be oppressed and unenlightened. 


Please don't unsister me.



Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Ladies (yuk, cringe)


I can't believe I forgot this one on my post about words I don't like maybe because I get told I'm ridiculous every time I gently question its usage. I got an email today informing me that an event I was enquiring about was for ladies only. I cringed. 


So I'm really sorry if this offends anyone (actually I know it will so I want you to know that I do this because I believe it brings greater liberation to women - and transformation is painful) but I have to spell some things out because I am offended by the word Ladies and so are many other's and if the church wants to be an inclusive and welcoming place it needs to drop this language. 


I have no empirical data for this but I feel that there is sometimes an extra over-usage of this word in Christian literature/ events that are about women's equal ability to lead in church. I wonder if its one of the manifestations of our insecurities? We have to continually refer to ourselves as ladies just to make sure everyone's clear that we're still all floral and feminine as we step up into the full humanity Christ offers us. 


I'm assuming this use of the word Ladies is in ignorance of it's history and the passionate advocacy of that great Christian Feminists like Josephine Butler who fought to expose double standards in morality. 


So a brief summary of why we shouldn't use it:


1.) It's used to police women's behaviours
If your a woman can you remember being told to be ladylike when you where little? Or told not to do something because it wasn't ladylike? I think I've proved my point.


2.) It's used to remind women they are the property of men. 


3.) It is something other people assign to you and can strip from you. It is not about your own sense of personhood. This point was most powerfully driven home to me when I was at a women's group and heard a woman respond with much pain at being called a lady. She had clearly been told by others that she had not met the mark and was not a lady.


4.) I guess linked to the above but it's classist. 


5.) It is and has been used to divide women against each other


6.) Much like princess, ladies don't do anything.


7.) It holds us to a demanding moral code not the freedom of grace


8.) God never calls us lady


Someone sent me the link it's fab (http://www.vfa.us/Feminist%20Language.htm) but my two favourite quotes:


"Girls do what their mothers tell them. Ladies do what society tells them. Women make up their own minds" (Karen Kijewski, 1989).


And most importantly for the church:


"There is a difference between women and ladies. The modern parasites made ladies, but God Almighty made women" (Mother Jones, 1912)


Please do not refer to me as a lady.