At first glance, the True Woman conference doesn't seem anti-feminist. It's main promotional video has a sisterly kind of vibe - it's all about loving God and living a good life. The trailer above about the conference hints at anti-feminism, but it gives a nod to "career women" and is magnanimous enough to show a woman wearing a stethoscope. (Never mind the implicit notion that only some women are "true" women, that's about to be the least of our concern.)
But their post-conference press outreach reveals a more insidious message: If you love God, you have to hate feminism.
A group of conservative Christian women is seeking 100,000 signatures on a "True Woman Manifesto" aimed at sparking a counter-revolution to the feminist movement of the 1960s.Introduced at a gathering of more than 6,000 women in early October, the document calls not for equal rights, but instead proclaims that men and women are created to reflect God's image in "complementary and distinct ways."
That includes the idea that women are called "to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church."
The press release intrigued me, so I checked out their website and some of the panels. Perhaps the most telling was one talk, "You've Come a Long Way, Baby!", given by Mary Kassian.
The short version: Patriarchy is fabulous, feminism is unnatural.
Kassian is particularly fond of romanticizing the imaginary perfect world of Leave it to Beaver, suggesting that life back in the 1950s (before darned feminism came around) actually was like the show.
Once married, a woman could normally count on her husband to financially support her and the children...Pornography and rape and homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual addiction, sexually transmitted diseases were uncommon and rarely encountered.
I don't know about your families, but back in the day my married Nana was working her tail off to support her kids because my grandfather's salary wasn't enough. And rape most certainly existed, though maybe it wasn't called that.
Kassian thinks that today's woman has lost her way, largely by...well, having rights.
In the past decade, we've been inundated with the message that when it comes to relationships, women can hook up, be in a casual or long-term relationship, live common-law, get married or not, get married and then get divorced, get pregnant or abort the babies, sleep around, live with a guy or a girl, have sex with a guy or a girl, and participate in a whole assortment of immoral and perverted behavior as long as they are friends. In other words, woman makes her own rules and sets her own standards, and as long as she is nice, it really doesn't matter what she does. Who are you to judge?
Um, yeah. Isn't that the point? Now, there's a lot more in this talk and others that I could pick apart, but I just wanted to focus on these points because it seems just wrong to me to suggest that a woman can't value her independence and the rights our foremothers fought for and also love God.
Now, I am not a religious person - I was raised with a healthy dose of agnosticism (though my parents are Buddhist and my extended family is Catholic). So I'll defer to those who know better - if any religious or spiritual feminists want to weigh in, please do! How do you balance your feminism with your faith? How can women who are involved in organized religions that promote patriarchy and traditional gender roles change the existing power structures?
Related: The True Woman conference was put on by the Revive Our Hearts women's ministry - which is a project of the Life Action Revival Ministries, an organization with nearly $10 million a year in funding. Just in case you were wondering.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Can you love God and feminism?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10970
I love God. I love feminism. I feel no difficulties in being both Christian and a Feminist. I cannot stand the people who constantly pit these two (and other "isms") against each other. If you read the Gospels carefully you'll see that Jesus was also a Feminist. He preached equality in the sexes, it is Paul to wrote about the "obedient wife". If you call yourself Christian, how about you follow the teachings of, oh I dunno... CHRIST! Not some guy who happened to get his letters put in the Bible. Also try reading the Gospel of Mary or any of the other Gnostic Gospels. Just please stop acting like your way is the only way. I think a sticker I found recently sums up my exact feelings on this: "The Christian Right is Neither!"
Agreed. The books written by Paul are extremely misogynistic and seem to me like the man (if he existed) was scarred in some way that caused him to hate women. Jesus does not come off that way and instead presents a closer balance between sexes. I still think it is a horribly patriarchal religion, down to its Judaic roots, but people really need to read and understand the Bible contextually and historically.
Paul was not just "some guy who happened to get his letters put in the Bible." He was personally selected by Jesus to spread the word, and God spoke through him. You ever read 1 Corinthians 13? (ever been to a wedding?):
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.
That's Paul. Don't tell me that's not inspired. Plus a lot more just as good.
I know that some of his stuff is sexist, but usually people cherry pick those quotes for bullshit purposes and they are ignoring the context, too.
I'm not trying to ignore that sexist stuff either (I think it needs to be discussed, but by somebody with way bigger feminist and theological chops than me), but just check out the letters yourself and see if there isn't about a 99:1 ratio of inspired spirituality to sexist crap.
Seriously, don't throw Paul under the bus, you've got to read the letters is you want to be Christian. He talks about everything being a Christian means: love, service, pouring yourself out for others and filling yourself with Christ, Paul articulated all that. All that from a man who's job was basically to hunt down Christians and stone them to death. And then Jesus specifically picked this evil man and struck him blind and made him his servant, and next thing the guy walks all over the ancient world talking about love and Christ crucified. Shit, if that ain't Christianity, what do YOU think it's all about?
The point is to recognize that Paul was human, and flawed. You can believe the Bible is divinely inspired and still accept that it's imperfect. Paul's brilliant writings don't change the fact that he was a misogynist, and a product of his times.
What pits the "isms" against each other is the fact that a large number of christians are misogynist to some degree. They may not espouse some of the more "extreme" views, but they definitely have ideas about what women should and shouldn't do and see these ideas not as opinions, but as "god ordained." Hard to argue with god, right?
It's clear to me that the type of christianity I most commonly see being practiced (here in Bible Belt, USA) is anti-woman. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things that a small minority interpret the base texts in a different way, a way compatible with feminism as you do. I'm not saying your interpretations are wrong, by the way. But until they are accepted on a wide scale and with the same passion which has invigorated the woman-hating constituency of christianity to push harder with their forced-pregnancy, sex-shaming, anti-homosexual, over-politicized agenda, christianity is something that will be viewed by me (and many other anti-religion feminists, I'm sure) with a very, very wary eye.
There are some denominations that are moving in a progressive direction. Anglican, notably. I'm not sure, maybe someone can confirm this, I also get the impression that the United Church is generally more forward-thinking.
You make a good point that Christianity means more than the words in the Gospels, it's what Christian leadership and history tell us it is. But alternative readings of Christianity aren't coming from just some scattered individuals.
There were two ministers from the United Church of Christ at the Planned Parenthood Interfaith Council meeting that I attended. When I told someone what church they were from, they said "of course!" I was not familiar with them as a liberal church, but I am no expert on such things.
Confirmed! UCC is probably the most liberal mainstream Christian denomination. We had Obama speak at our national synod a couple years back!
So yeah, there's definitely a lot of progressive Christian work being done. It's just that the crazies get all the press...
I've been to a few churches just to try them. United was the only one I could see trying again. I loved that they care about social justice, their community AND their world and welcome all.
But you see this is Exactly what I don't get. In order to be a normal functioning and reasonable person you have to just ignore the 'bad' parts of the bible. What's the point in bending over backwards for a system that does not also want to throw away the stupid parts of the bible that are harmful to women and other people?
Perhaps I'm just thinking in argument fashion too much but I learned that when your base argument has off points you should write up a better one that does not have those errors. This was part of my own thinking when I rejected Christianity.
This isn't to say one can't have spirituality and such. One of the things I always thought would be great would be to throw out the old bible and re-edit it so that it reflects today's values instead of just cherry picking a flawed book. Start a new branch of Christianity that doesn't include things like Leviticus and such.
Exactly. How is it reasonable to ignore this, that and the other thing, and all that Titus stuff, and the stonings and such because you know it is absolutely wrong and bullshit? (But not that other stuff you like, of course.)
Why the hell not be a good person, and even believe in a higher power for its own sake, instead of turning a blind eye to so much of what does make up the foundations of the teachings of the religion?
Because the Bible is a collection of teachings about how things were for people, and are things we can learn from. No one in my church suggests that stoning is or ever was a good idea. In fact, Jesus specifically stops a woman from being stoned to death (note especially that she was a woman - the dude was seriously going out on a limb for her. I mean, if you think women are treated poorly now...)
Yeah, there are some that take the Bible as a guide to how life should be now, and those people scare the crap out of me. We need to look at it as documents that shaped our history. Stories to learn from. Stories to guide us in how to live now. Not as an ideal to get back to.
I'm feminist and I'm Christian. My church supports marriage for any couple, ordination of homosexuals, abortion rights, and inclusive God-language. Christianity does not have to include misogyny or even patriarchy, and it is the opinion of many of us (Christians, I mean, not just members of my denomination) that it shouldn't.
I'm not religious (or spiritual, even), but I think the obvious answer is that the Bible isn't God, and it isn't Jesus; it's a book written by a bunch of men ABOUT God and Jesus, and those men lived 2000 years ago (or more, for the OT) in a massively patriarchal culture.
The earthbound, fallible trappings of the Bible don't represent the glory and righteousness of God, any more than the total crapitude of Twilight is a fair representation of the complex human being who wrote it.
yes but in that case you would not call yourself a Christian.
Why? I'm not personally a Christian, but plenty of Christians believe that their religion is about, you know, Christ, not the Bible. They think Bible literalists are worshipping false idols---a flawed book---instead of God.
The Bible gives them a starting point, from which they can apply better translations, historical context, and modern understanding of things like equality. Jesus never said "You know who's awesome? Straight white dudes with money." In fact, he was pretty clear about the opposite, whereas the people writing about him weren't such forward thinkers. So, like any nonfiction (including newspapers!) you have to read through the bias.
Just because evangelicals want us to believe that those people aren't Christians doesn't make it true; evangelicals have a stake in making the huge number of non-literalists and of progressive Christians seem like "fake" Christians, and I for one won't buy into their bullshit on this matter any more than I do their bullshit about women's roles or gay marriage.
You say you aren't religious or spiritual, but I feel like you believe in a Deity. Do you believe in a Deity? Because that makes you religious or spiritual. If not, why are you defending this ridiculousness?
>Yes, there's a God, and He represents basically whatever I want, since I can't trust any of the literature about Him.
That's really not what I'm saying or what they believe; you're twisting a perfectly reasonable argument into a straw man. Look, any given biography is flawed; the author only knows what ze can find out about the subject.
But just because a biography of Lincoln is flawed, that doesn't mean Lincoln didn't exist or that you can't learn about Lincoln from it. It would be absolutely silly to come to that conclusion, actually.
So if you are a Christian and start from the position that Jesus existed and was the son of God, then the flaws in the Bible don't make that less true; they just mean it's harder to know what really happened. So you use the tools you have---translation, historical context, and common sense---to figure out some of the rest, and you use your "God-given" intelligence to fill in the gaps.
Let's not forget that progressive churches were performing gay weddings decades before any state even considered gay marriage. Religion can be a driving progressive force as much as it can be the above kind of insanity.
Again, they believe in the reality and divinity of CHRIST, hence the word CHRISTIAN---they're not called "Biblians"! Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Actually, what I find interesting is that you seem to think that anyone who's not a pure literalist should just give up on belief altogether. Now, really---do you want the only Christians to be Pat Boone types? 'Cause I don't. I want there to continue to be millions and millions of mainstream, progressive Christians to keep the crazies in check.
Nope, I don't believe in a deity. I'm in no way spiritual. But I have a serious interest in not letting the insanity of evangelicals blind the rest of us to the REAL good work that's done by mainstream Christians every day.
If we start buying into extremist conceptions of Christianity, then the extremists win.
"So if you are a Christian and start from the position that Jesus existed and was the son of God."
Why would you start with that? Where does that information come from if not the Bible? People aren't just born thinking about Jesus, and then they happen to get introduced to this book. The Bible is the source of the religion. Jesus was a Jew, which means he thinks that the Torah was given to the Jews by Moses, directly from God. Modern Christians have no knowledge of Jesus except what was written by people thousands of years ago. And we're not talking about reading a Lincoln biography, we're talking about trying to discern the will of God.
Maybe I'm just not clear on why you're so interested in defending this religion.
"Why would you start with that? Where does that information come from if not the Bible? People aren't just born thinking about Jesus, and then they happen to get introduced to this book. The Bible is the source of the religion."
This, exactly this
But the Bible was written by various people, over a really long time, and the different parts need to be read in context. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.
Thank you, yes, this exactly.
I wasn't born knowing about Lincoln, but luckily we have (imperfect) books and knowledge about his life and times.
The only difference between believing Lincoln was the 16th President of the US and believing Jesus was the son of God is faith. I can't explain faith to you, because I don't have it, but that doesn't make it invalid.
Look; mainstream Christians believe. They're not going to stop believing on your say-so. Why wouldn't you rather they believe in liberal, progressive interpretations than that they turn away towards literalism because too many angry, intolerant atheists have told them they're "not really" Christians? That's an easy, easy question for me.
We defend personal choices in this country. Religion is one of those choices. And when religious people are championing MY rights---when they're fighting Prop 8, when they're working for equal pay, when they're involved in anti-racism---I'm sure as hell not going to tell them that I, an atheist, know more about what makes a person Christian than they do.
Frankly, saying that you know what makes Christians Christians better than, you know, self-professed Christians? Makes you sound like an arrogant jackass.
"I can't explain faith to you, because I don't have it, but that doesn't make it invalid."
This seems odd to me. People are just too careful with where they place their faith. No one has faith in Santa Claus, or in invisible pink unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters. I can't help but notice the correlation between faith and rigorous indoctrination from a young age. Maybe the two are unrelated, but I have my suspicions.
And this isn't about making opinion type decisions like what kind of food you like to eat. This is about willfully saying "I choose not to think" instead of thinking. I don't mind being an arrogant jackass about things like that.
But that's not a universally true statement about Christians - you're making huge assumptions.
>This is about willfully saying "I choose not to think" instead of thinking.
If that's seriously what you think about all religious people ... well, I hope for everyone's sake you're a teenager, because that kind of ill-informed Manichean view of the world just shouldn't exist in adults. You are the other side of the Westboro Baptist Church coin: still hateful, still unable to process the wonderful diversity of people, still ignorant.
This is about willfully saying "I choose not to think" instead of thinking.
Seriously? I'm in grad school, in math. Last year, I went pretty regularly to a Beit Midrash -- a sort of Jewish study hall, where for the first hour, someone would give a talk on some Jewish text, and then for the next hour, we'd study other texts in small groups. The approach to text study in Beit Midrash was often very similar to the approach I'd use to reading a math paper -- read for meaning, compare with other texts, check the citations and sources, see if it makes sense, think about if there's anything further that can be deduced, and so on.
I can't help but notice the correlation between faith and rigorous indoctrination from a young age. Maybe the two are unrelated, but I have my suspicions.
The vast majority of the committed Christians I know are people who were not born to very religious families, have struggled with their faith and have changed faiths as adults. Many of those whose parents did raise them in a church, meanwhile, were raised with loose value systems rather than religious doctrine; many also broke with religion during adolescence before renegotiating their beliefs independently.
Quite a few were simply raised mainline Protestant and not terribly religious but later had "born again"-type experiences during their adult life. For one, it came with a life crisis; for another, it came with an experience that she called communications with a dead parent (but that you might call hallucinations).
Meanwhile, those few people I know who were born to similarly devout parents and have always been very assured of their faith are non-denominational and, indeed, have no doctrine other than "Jesus saved me and loves me so I worship him." They're the kind of people who go church-shopping, start up their own churches with friends in school meeting rooms and have involved conversations about reconciling their faith with other aspects of their lives. (My boyfriend's siblings are like this, although my boyfriend dropped his faith during adolescence. Their father had had a fairly secular upbringing by mainline Protestants.)
This, by the way, was in Nashville -- often called the buckle of the Bible belt -- and not in some West Coast-y paradise of liberal Christianity. (I say this because I have always gotten conflicting views from Unitarian friends as to whether their church considers itself Christian.)
In whom exactly are you noticing the correlation to which you refer, anyway?
And this isn't about making opinion type decisions like what kind of food you like to eat. This is about willfully saying "I choose not to think" instead of thinking.
Huh? What is about choosing not to think? Are you talking about Christianity?
If so, have you ever read a theological text, listened in on an informal Bible study group arranged by teenagers or twenty-somethings or, for that matter, been to mass or another church service?
Try it. It might help you avoid making ignorant, hateful, deliberately closed-minded statements like the ones you're making all over this post.
Just FYI I've studied philosophy and theology extensively from both an in universe and meta analysis standpoint. I'm not disputing that you can converse intelligently about it. I'm disputing that it is intelligent to posit belief in the first place.
I'm obviously not saying the religious people just universally never think. I'm talking about the concept of faith. Faith is just choosing to believe something for no reason at all. Faith is saying "I'm not going to question this, I'm just going to believe it." You can't logic your way to God.
Oh, and I hate that I'm even justifying myself to you, but I'm not a teenager, I'm not hateful, and I'm not ignorant. Normally I'd say you're just trying to marginalize me because atheism threatens whatever beliefs you have. But you're purporting to be an atheist. So I'm still at a loss. Why are you defending people's willingness to make themselves ignorant? I think you're a closet theist.
>Why are you defending people's willingness to make themselves ignorant?
YOU are the reason I'm not open about my atheism in some settings. Because people like you believe you're just plain smarter and better than the 6+ BILLION religious people on the planet.
You know what? I'm pretty sure you're not. They're probably not smarter than you or I, either. We all just process the world differently.
Coming from this kind of intolerant, my-way-or-the-highway perspective makes every other atheist look like an arrogant jerk. So please, get some freaking humility and realize that you don't actually know better than billions of religious people---you've just had different experiences.
Faith is just choosing to believe something for no reason at all. Faith is saying "I'm not going to question this, I'm just going to believe it." You can't logic your way to God.
For me, anyway, faith is examining myself and realizing that I do believe. I didn't choose to believe -- I choose how I express that belief, but the belief itself is something that's just there. You said that you can't logic your way to G-d. I can't logic my way away from G-d.
Um, I feel the same way, and I am a devout Christian.
Hey, tell me more about this tight-ass chapter 2 opportunity! ;-)
Oh now this has pissed me off. As a proud Feminist AND a proud Christian this is more than a little annoying to me. How do I balance it? The same way I balance feminism with any other part of my life. It's just there, apart of who I am. It's a solid foundation of my beliefs. It's true that in my religion there are people who will take the Bible and use that as an example of how women "are supposed to be". That the man is the head of the house and yadda, yadda, yaddah.
I won't get into all of my counter arguments, verses that I can use to contradict them, not to mention the fact that Jesus defends a prostitute who was about to be stoned, because it is very tiresome and I have to do it in "real life" all the time anyway.
But I would like to say that it's people like this who scare away a lot of others away from Christianity. Their close-minded, often prejudiced personal views give many people the worng impression and it makes me very angry.
From very personal experience, you can without a doubt love God and be a feminist.
My general take on my religion is this: Don't be an ass. Really, that's all it takes to fulfill all of the Christian tenants. I try to do that in spades.
I'm very glad this was posted. It's something that I've been thinking a lot about lately, especially in regards to Paul and Christ and women.
Jesus was all about women-- his mother, Mary Magdalene, sisters Mary and Martha (I think they needed babynames.com back then, though), the woman at the well, the woman saved from being stoned for adultery, etc.
It's the church that I have the problem with-- the church that has become more political than spiritual. The modern church's push to put woman back in the home seems so much more rooted in certain leader's ideas rather than anything in the Bible itself.
Paul says women aren't to teach in the church, sure-- but he also wrote at a time when women weren't educated or literate so of course a teacher should know what he or she is talking about before they speak to others.
And yes, Paul said for women to honor their husbands. But in my research (which I admit is as of yet incomplete), I haven't found anything that says "Women, obey men." The "honoring" clause exists strictly between husbands and wives. Personally, I think I'm all right with that. Because if I've married someone, then I know that it's a relationship based upon mutual respect and affection-- that we're partners, not a master and servant. Outside of that, there's nothing that says I as a woman have to submit to "you" as a man. So, I don't plan on it.
It's hard sometimes, I'll admit. But I really think movements like this are more about the church than Jesus. It's more about pushing a conservative agenda than the words of Christ.
As for me and my house, we will serve a God that embodies both masculine and feminine traits, and we will live as women who are under no obligation to shut up or sit down.
I generally agree with you, except that patriarchy in the church is very old. As I'm fond of pointing out, early Christians were very different from the church as we know it, very much about what Jesus actually taught. There were female leaders. So the misogyny was not there from the beginning, not even as a reflection of social realities.
Although I no longer consider myself primarily a Christian (I have been studying different religions for the past 4 years and have ended up with a mix that better fits my beliefs) I was raised Lutheran. My mother is also a feminist and still a practicing Christian. For both of us, being a Christian and a feminist are not mutually exclusive. Particularily for my mother, having her faith in Christ and God is not about the specific religion being practiced at her church. She disagrees with some of the aspects of how her church acts on it's doctrine, and makes an effort to show how other interpritations could also be true. You can believe in Christ/God/whatever religion you practice while still acknowledging that the religion has been written down and largely interprited by men. That doesn't make the original faith/message invalid. It just means that people (mostly men) have been the messangers of the faith and may have lost the true faith along the way, putting their own patriarchal spin on interpretation over thousands of years.
You know what makes a woman become disillusioned? Realizing that no matter how hard she works, she isn't going to be receiving the same accolades or the same pay for her work that her male colleagues receive.
Oh. My. God.
I will come back and give the question at hand my full attention, but I got totally sidetracked by the transcript from Mary Kassian's presentation ... is she totally ignorant of history and culture, or is she just obstinate in furthering lies, lies, and more damned lies.
And did she just trash Mary Tyler Moore? Not cool.
Although I think she kind of makes an interesting point about Leave it to Beaver vs. Murphy Brown. Kassian states that she was born into the Leave it to Beaver world, and that is what she idealizes. I was born into a Murphy Brown world (it was my favorite show in childhood, and was being raised by a single mom with a full time job), and I believe that women are capable of succeeding in the workplace and making their own choices about childhood and marriage, and don't need either to be happy. I wonder how much television really does shape our brains ...
er, CHILDBEARING and marriage ...
Huh. I was born into the MB world, too, though I never watched it. That would be an interesting study to do. :)
There is a book called What Would Murphey Brown Do? That discusses the effect of women on television's role in our collective thinking about women. Its pretty cool, and apparently the same author did another book called What Would Buffy Do? that I'm dying to read.
not related to the thread, but if you like those, you should check out the books at this site. they've got a LOT of good critical essays on all kinds of tv shows, movies, books, etc.
http://smartpopbooks.com/
I'm a Christian and a feminist too, and it makes me really happy to see all of these comments. I was raised in a home that respected both these belief systems. My parents did their best to honor and respect each other. It didn't have much to do with gender - more the fact that if you put your love for the other person first, things generally fall in line....though my mom says she knows this probably wouldn't work with a man who didn't respect her.
I agree with the previous comments that it really has more to do with a problem in the church, and the religious right, than it does with a belief in Christ. You also only ever hear the crappy side of religion stories in the media. As feminists we should be familiar with that. My parents were very excited to see that their denomination - American Baptist (different from Southern Baptists) just released a statement saying they don't agree with the Iraq war and believe our country should withdraw. But of course that is not in the news.
Organized religion is pretty scary at times but I believe in spirituality and it often times feels similar to feminism in that its a pretty unpopular choice in many circles.
Some of the other comments mentioned Jesus's actions and I'd like to point out that with Mary and Martha - he told Martha that she should, like Mary, join the men in study and dialogue instead of making dinner and cleaning the house.
I'm a Christian theologian by training and a Christian educator for a living, so I think I can address this question with some amount of authority.
My response to Jessica's question is:
Yup! (Very authoritative, huh?)
I love reading the responses that Fernlily and others, especially Catriona, wrote. They're right on, but I would go one step further.
You cannot love God if you're not a feminist. God meant for us all to be equally in relationship, in possession of our own authority, with strong voices and presences. That doctrine, in Christian theology, is called imago dei (and don't look that up in Wikipedia - it's woefully inaccurate.)
Glad to see this post Jessica! I tipped off the editors over at Jezebel (love for the Jezzies!) about this True Woman Manifesto thing awhile ago but they didn't run anything about it, so I'm glad to see it here.
I am a Christian (Epsicopalian to be exact, which is sort of "halfway" between Protestantism and Catholicism), and I have never had a problem reconciling my feminism with my Christianity.
I think one of the reasons people get the idea that being a feminist and being a Christian is impossible is because so much of the public face of Christianity is conervative Evangelical Protestantism (Focus on the Family, etc.),which tends to loudly speak out against feminism, abortion and other women's rights issues. In reality, Evangelical Protestantism does not make up the majority of Christianity worldwide.
Most of Evangelical Protestant churches believe that the Bible is 100% without error. Other branches of Christianity (including Catholics and many "mainline" Protestants) believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but written by humans and open to interpretation and study, and that what is written is not necessarily GOD'S FINAL WORD.
As a lifelong Episcopalian, and a graduate of a Catholic university, I have NEVER had anti-woman crap shoved down my throat. In fact my favorite professor was a feminist, lesbian NUN who broke all the stereotypes and still had an amazing faith.
The God that I believe in is loving, merciful and wise. I believe that he created men and women with minds and talents that he intended them to use, and I think it makes God deeply sad to see that people use His words to keep women in a place of suboordination.
I went to Catholic high school and one of our religion teachers was a nun. She was very progressive, more of what you'd expect from a hippie than a nun. She called her students "gods and goddesses".
I consider myself a christian and a feminist, and it's not easy. This is why: the bible is a book written by men in a time that was unapologetically patriarchal. It is easy to read the directions about gender relations in the old and new testaments as statements about The Way Things Should Be (tm) from God. Indeed, many people do. Considering it was men defending power who wrote these things in a world where no alternative was thinkable, though, I don't think it's too farfetched to see the ways those laws and stories are really about protecting women from being severely mistreated in a system in which they have so few rights.
As a feminist raised by a feminist and preacher- my stepmom, that is, I would say absolutely. However, to feel true to yourself, in my experience you have to choose your church carefully. The post, and most comments, only seem to refer to "Christian" churches, but of course, many Christian churches are broken down into different denominations, many that are broken down even more into different groups, and within those, there are differing beliefs on a variety of things, from the place of women in society in general and in the church in particular, to homosexuality, to wealth, to the environment. In my church, a member of the Presbyterian group PCUSA, women are ministers and elders and all the same places as men, and I have never heard any sort of encouragement of any of the things this True Woman conference promoted. But in another Presbyterian church down the street, part of a different branch, women cannot be ordained as ministers. Most of the Protestant denominations vary in this way, but of course, it's the churches like these non-specific "Christian" churches and the Catholic church who are in the news and therefore become what outsiders think of when they hear "Christian". Unfortunately,"'Such and such church' believes women and men are created equal and can do whatever they like with their time and talents" isn't headline worthy.
I absolutely do not agree with this blog. Since when is it Christianity or Feminism? Why is it just limited down to one way or the other? A group of us were actually talking the other day about how to incorporate your feminism into religion. I hate when historical sacred texts are put into today's world when they were written in a completely different context, not to mention that there are not really any historical writers that had women's interest in mind. Also, there are many women in the Bible that stand out and fight, hence Ester.
This is a great conference if the goal is to convince women not to be a Christian.
Amy, I wasn't trying to imply that one can only choose religion OR feminism. That's what the conference organizers and speakers were saying - I'm hoping this post and the amazing comments it has generated already will prove that they're wrong.
To answer the question "how to..."
Choose a spiritual center or church that ordains female reverends or has female Rabbi's
etc.
Where there is GLBT and female leadership, there is usually feminism.
Not all Christian Churches call God "him or he"
Not all Synagogues are Orthodox
If you are a feminist, then you can also be open to the fact that there are too many ways to be spiritual or religious to count. You can open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, those of us who are strongly spiritual/faithful
may also be intelligent, well educated, productive, feminists.
"I wasn't trying to imply that one can only choose religion OR feminism."
If that is true, then perhaps the title of the post could have been,
"You can love God and Feminism"
or
"You can love God and be Feminist"
Rather than "Can you..."
A quote from a female religious leader in the body, from a religious practice that is more inclusive than the usual stereotypes of religious people would have been friendlier to those of us who have a spiritual practice and are feminist activists.
Hara: why would the title be: "You can love God and feminism."? The title was a question, made to stimulate our responses. Thus the title was constructed as a question and not a statement.
Pretty darn simple, wouldn't you agree?
Hara: why would the title be: "You can love God and feminism."? The title was a question, made to stimulate our responses. Thus the title was constructed as a question and not a statement.
Pretty darn simple. -Facepalm-
I think the post was made to once again bring the battle between spiritual and non spiritual religious and non religious feminists online.
The title lets us in on the OPs perspective and the question is more than provacative, it's asking for a fight-
Were the stats down on this site or something?
Need a lil controversy? Incite the atheists and and the faithful- Showdowns like this make us all look bad or at least intolerant.
I went to a myriad of churches and synagogues as a child, read the Bible twice, was ridiculously devout...
Traditional Christian religions are in NO WAY compatible with feminism. But, being that they are man made...and based on interpretations of a man made text...it is possible to make them feminist friendly.
I'm not sure what you mean by traditional Christian religions? Denominations?
OMG, I just saw the part about the organization putting this on having a $10 million budget a year.
How many starving people would just amount spent on promotional materials for this conference feed?
Yes, exactly! It's like when I see these amazing cathedrals with $10000/month upkeep costs. Buy a hall and feed some people!
They can take their "god ordained male leadership" and shove it up their patriarchal asses.
I don't "balance" my feminism with my faith. The word "balance" implies they are inconsistent or opposing considerations that weigh against one another, and I don't find that to be the case. My feminism informs my faith, and my faith informs my feminism, and each set of beliefs strengthens the other. Which is probably how I've never in my life attended a church in which Revive Our Hearts would find much enthusiasm.
It's like asking how I balance being a lawyer and being a feminist. I don't have to. They're different faces of the same thing.
Apologies if you find 'balance' lacking - I def see your point. What do you think is a better question for discussion?
Yeah, that's why I didn't get too persnickety: I'm not sure what word would have been better in that sentence. But your second question gets there without the extra baggage, I think. Because the problem IME is not about a direct conflict between feminism and faith in core Christian beliefs. (I know your question is not limited to Christianity, but that's where my experience is, and the perspective that's addressed in the linked video.) The problem is a conflict between feminism and certain subgroups of Christianity, or feminism and a patriarchal organizational structure or patriarchal history. And I guess I handle those conflicts in about the same way I handle conflicts with anti-feminist women, or the conflicts presented to me as a woman working within a male-dominated profession.
This is exactly how I feel about my faith and feminism, they inform one another. I truly feel they go hand in hand. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean being a Christian feminist is easy. I've often encountered other Christians who believe that I can't love God and feminism. I've even had church members who I thought were my friends say things that let me know they were all hoping, perhaps even praying that I'd be "delivered" from feminism. It makes me want to cry. Months ago I was writing an essay on this very topic, but never finished it. I think this post may be a sign that I need to get back to work. Thanks for posting this Jessica.
As a Christian feminist attending a major (conservative) Christian college, I have very few problems reconciling my feminism and my faith.
In fact, I just wrote an exam for my religion class discussing how to approach the Bible (which has been used for centuries to justify the oppression and silencing of many groups) with a "hermeneutic of trust." That is, I don't dismiss the hurt and institutional problems the Bible, and by extension Christianity, have caused, but I don't dismiss the Bible either. For example, all of Jesus' interactions with women were inclusive and respectful. He allowed them to speak, and he encouraged their learning and discipleship (See Mary v. Martha in the case of who belongs in the kitchen).
My Christianity means that I believe every human is worthwhile, every human should have life - "life to the full!" (John 10:10). That means forget patriarchy, "traditional" gender roles, and anything else that limits people's ability to have a full life, in my book!
It frustrates me when groups like "True Women" (hm, as opposed to what, "fake" women?) set the tone for what "Christians" believe - and particularly how Christians act. Mary Daly would call these "True Women" totaled women, I'm afraid.
My feeling is that you can't truly love God and NOT be a feminist. God made me a woman. God made me queer. If you think I should in any way be limited because of these facts, that implies that God did something wrong when making me, and well, that's not very loving of God, is it? Every religion, at its core, is based on values of peace and acceptance and love. Any interpretations of religion that go against those principles are going against God.
Rock on - great response!!
Hells yeah! Powerful stuff, Kelci.
God made Man X, God made Man X a child molester. If you think he should in any way be limited because of these facts, that implies that God did something wrong when making him, and well, that's not very loving of God, is it?
Or did he choose to be a child molester in a way that you did not choose to be queer?
I don't think it's safe to assume that Christians who think gay people are born gay necessarily also think that molesters are born molesters, murderers murderers or whatnot.
In making that assumption, I think you're forgetting the concept of sin. Molesting and murdering are simply sins to many Christians, even to those who may disagree on whether gay sex is a sin. I don't see why it's so off-the-wall to you that a Christian might consider homosexuality an identity while considering sexual assault a sin.
Repeatedly in your comments here, you've lumped Christians together as this mythic ignorant mass that conveniently corroborates your disdain for them. But if Christians just think God intended for some people to molest or kill or whatever, why do you think prayers are prayed over sinners, and why do you think so many evangelical Christians preach in prisons?
The contradiction you're explaining is my point. The point is that if you believe in ultimate free will, then how can you ever say that God just intended such and such? Any intention by God implies that he did something and expected results. If He can intend things and interfere, then how can you ever hold people accountable, they're just doing what God intended? The whole issue of prayer is related to this, and a bunch of other things. There are just tons of contradictory assumptions you need to make to have any of this work.
I think I'm just going to try to stop talking in terms of what religions should and shouldn't do to try to be internally consistent. Every problem that you point out with my arguments contains a plethora of background assumptions that are themselves problematic. Trying to sift through them would take forever, and we'd probably just end up where we started.
I don't like the word sin because to me sinning is about obeying some rules in the Bible or something, whereas I define good versus bad in terms of harms. I personally believe that there is a higher power that had a hand in creating me, but I also have free will to benefit or to harm others, and that is up to me. Being attracted to girls doesn't intrinsically harm anyone (or benefit anyone for that matter), so I'm comfortable attributing that to being part of how I'm "hardwired", if you will. Molesting a child is an action that an individual carries out that has negative impacts on others, therefore it is not part of how someone is created. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but that's how I see it in my mind. By the way thanks everybodyever for backing me up, and thanks doubleb for the comment- it made me think :D.
Your theory is that no good and just God would create people who inherently would do evil things, but He'll let them do the evil things to good people just to prove a point? What about completely insane people do cause pain out of no choice of their own, but because of mental illness? That's not giving anyone a choice in anything, it's just random violence. Sigh.
I know all the canned responses, don't bother. This is why I shouldn't even start talking in threads like this.
My feeling is that you can't truly love God and NOT be a feminist. God made me a woman. God made me queer. If you think I should in any way be limited because of these facts, that implies that God did something wrong when making me, and well, that's not very loving of God, is it? Every religion, at its core, is based on values of peace and acceptance and love. Any interpretations of religion that go against those principles are going against God.
I find Judaism to be the most feminist-friendly of the major God-worshipping religions. Only in one place in the Torah is homosexuality mentioned: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would lie with a woman; thus is an abomination." This can be interpreted in several different ways—it could mean that two guys can go at it like dogs, providing neither of them prevents one of them is a woman. I think we can all agree that doesn't count as a restriction.
Sex isn't recommended unless you've devoted your life to someone, but like having a tattoo, there aren't any repercussions backed by or handed down by God. Abortion is a-okay at all times. Women are allowed to divorce their husbands if they are unsatisfied for whatever reason.
There are plenty of traditions within the Jewish community and culture that are sexist, and it can be easy to disagree with some of what the Torah says in regards to women. However, for the most part, Judaism is not inherently sexist, especially when one keeps in mind that the Torah is written in traditional Hebrew without vowels, making interpretation very easy and even encouraged.
I think the same can be said for a lot of religions. They aren't inherently sexist but they've become patriarchal.
It's interesting that you say Judaism seems like the most feminist-friendly religion, when one of the things that bothers me about right-wing evangelicals is that they more often quote strictures from the Old Testament than the words of Jesus, and the point of the New Testament is that it's new, Jesus challenged the old rules and power structures. ...that reads like I'm bashing Judaism. But from a value-free perspective, Jesus was a revolutionary, so it's kind of weird that the people who follow him rely so much on what came before.
Judaism is much more than just the Old Testament, though. Just in terms of sheer volume, the Talmud takes up a shelf or two.
okay,right. *rolls eyes at self* Thanks.
There are many differences between the Christian and Jewish versions of the Old Testament. What Christians quote is not necessarily what is written in the Torah.
I'm not sure you're allowed to be a Unitarian if you're anti-feminist. :P
I know my (female) minister would have a thing or two to say about "God-ordained male leadership in...the church". Actually, now that I think of it, my home congregation has never had a male minister.
I don't mean to annoy you by responding seriously to what was obviously a joke, but I think sexism is alive and well in Unitarianism too.
Unfortunately.
Oh no worries. I certainly didn't intend to imply that the religion as an institution is blemish free, and certainly there will always be individuals who do not live up to ideals. I have to say I'm pleased with what I've seen of the level of female involvement in church leadership though.
Do you mind if I ask what your experiences with sexism in Unitarianism have been?
I've been a UU for many years, and you're right that it's incredibly progressive. For sure, I feel more at home there as a feminist than anywhere else.
I guess my disappointment when I do encounter (mild) sexism is that I have such high expectations, so I'm let down more easily.
As another feminist Christian I agree with much of what has been said already - I never have a problem 'balancing' my faith and my feminism, but I do sometimes have trouble with the church and feminism. As mentioned, some churches can be rather patriarchal, and occasionally other christians make comments I disagree with.
Overall though, I would say that since God evidently made women as capable as men, why would he not want us to act like it?
I balance it by not being Christian. I don't understand why people act like Christianity is the ONLY way to be religious.
? This is a topic about a Christian organization... ?
True, the body of the post focuses on a particular woman-hating strain of christianity. But the title of the post is "Can you love God and feminism?"
Last I checked, the christians didn't have a monopoly on the concept of "God."
Hmm, that made me think of the Minangkabau in Indonesia. They are(some argue) a matriarchy that base their high value on women from teachings from the Koran (though many of there pro-women beliefs also seem to stem from cultural traditions and religions before they converted to Islam).
There are many feminists who have a close relationship to God and are even actively involved in Christianity. However, I think the difficult thing to accept is that, for the most part, feminists and tradition cannot happily coexist. This is sad news for many of us who may be sentimental, but loads of traditions are either reserved for men or have strict roles for women. Many of Western traditions are rooted in Christianity, so it does become very hard for feminists to participate in traditional Christian communities.
The good news is that the goal of feminism leaves room for hope that we may pave a new way in the world that surrounds us. Perhaps, someday, good Christian women will be those who follow their own hearts and minds -- not their husbands.
People engage with their culture and traditions, they can mean different things to different people. There isn't a monolithic Christian culture, even smaller denominations aren't unitary. Meaning is contested.
I'm not sure what traditions you're talking about... besides marriage and everything surrounding it... "traditional" gender roles are by no means unique to Western Christian-based culture (Confusionism anyone?), and are much more a product of social circumstances than anything vital to the religion. I don't think anyone who calls themself a feminist would cling to an explicitly sexist tradition, they would at least challenge or reinterpret it.
"Perhaps, someday, good Christian women will be those who follow their own hearts and minds -- not their husbands."
Okay, that's just really condescending. Again, there's no universal understanding of what it means to be a "good Christian", that's why you see so many different denominations. Several of which are progressive and pro-equality. And are you saying that prominent Christian women, or religious women in general are mindless followers? You come very close to doing just that. Even women who accept patriarchy engage with it and make room for their own agency. And "following their husband" is by no means regarded as the highest standard that Christian women can achieve - the ideals of service to the less fortunate and self-sacrifice are more than anything else what is at the centre of Christianity, no matter what denomination, and those are ideals which anyone, man or woman, can achieve.
There are many denominations that have made way for female equality, but that aligns with my last statement that you took so much offense towards. I'm Catholic, so I'm totally not trying to put down Christianity, but you're living with your head in the ground if you think that even a majority of Christian culture has an equitable place for women.
Please assume when I say anything like "good, Christian woman", I am saying it tongue-in-cheek. The whole purpose of feminism is to revisit traditional views of what makes a good woman.
I'm not sure I agree with this assessment-
All of these things and other pro-women beliefs may fit comfortably with reform Judaism, but traditional/orthodox Judaism, which follows the Torah precisely, is not all that feminist friendly.
Some problems I see:
-thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would lie with a woman is generally interpreted as "it's ok to be a homosexual, but not to act on your feelings" in observant/orthodox circles
-abortion is not actually accepted, although there is some leniency in the early stages and in cases where the mother's life is threatened. as i understand it, this view stems from the general belief that life is the greatest blessing. you are correct that there is no punishment for abortion (or other misdeeds)
-women are not permitted to sit with men during religious services, but instead sit behind a mahitzah (sp?) or divider so that their presence will not distract the men from prayer
-married women must wear skirts that cover their knees, sleeves that cover their elbows, and cover their hair as well. women should also not sing or dance in front of men.
-women are only permitted to study the "woman's part" of the torah, while men study the entire book
-women are required to go to the mikvah (ritual bath) after every period to cleanse themselves of the spiritual impurity that arises from the "missed opportunity to create life" this too stems from the belief that life is the greatest blessing, but I disagreed with the implication that a woman's main priority should be bearing children
I don't think Judaism is inherently more or less feminist than any other patriarchal faith. Thankfully, much of the Jewish community does however value feminism and social justice and consequently this has become an important part of reform Judaism. Thank you for bringing this up - it's something I've been thinking about too =)
That's not quite true. On abortion, there are a lot of differences of opinion within Orthodox circles. (On homosexuality, not so much, but there are some people who have different interpretations of that one.)
The mechitzah dividing men and women doesn't always put women behind men -- there's no reason why it can't divide left and right, rather than front and back, and that is the way it's set up in a lot of Orthodox synagogues. (It's traditionally front and back, but I've never seen anyone arguing that it HAS to be.)
The skirts past the knees and sleeves past the elbows are the traditional interpretation of the modesty rule, but not the only one. And there are modesty rules for men, too -- nobody is supposed to be showing off their bodies. And yes, married women are supposed to cover their hair. As for singing and dancing in front of men, that's an Ashkenazic tradition -- I don't think any Sephardic communities have a tradition of banning that. (I could be wrong on this one, but I know at least that the Iraqi community didn't have that restriction.)
There is no "women's part" of the Torah. I think what you mean is that, in the commentaries, generally girls are only taught Rashi, while boys learn the other commentators, too. But again, this is almost entirely just tradition -- I don't think there's anything saying that women CAN'T study the other commentators. In fact, there are a few Talmud study schools set up specifically for women who want to study more than they were taught as kids in school, and most Modern Orthodox schools teach boys and girls the same curriculum.
The mikveh is way more than I can get into without this becoming a book. I saw a really interesting interpretation of the mikveh a few years ago -- I'm going to see if I can find it again. (Unfortunately, IIRC, it was in an email newsletter from my rabbi, sent to an account that I don't have access to anymore.)
I wasn't able to find the article on mikveh that I was talking about, but here's kind of a combination of what I remember from that and a few other places, and how I approach it.
One of the traditional interpretations of the mikveh is "separation." Although most users of a mikveh are women after their periods, there are men who use them at various times, and women who come for other reasons. You're supposed to go after you've touched a dead body or been with someone very ill. After giving birth or after a miscarriage. After touching the Torah (generally, the Torah is only handled by the wooden pieces or the cover -- you don't touch the scroll itself. When reading it, you use a special pointer to keep your place, so that you don't touch the words with your finger. If you touch it by accident, you're supposed to go to the mikveh.) Some men go before Shabbat each week, and many go before Yom Kippur.
What all these things have in common is that they're times when people get very close to G-d. Shabbat is a holy day, and the Torah is a holy book. The birth and death and menstruation ones are all about the beginnings and ends of life -- things that are supposed to be functions of G-d, not of people. So when the sacred and the ordinary get too close, in situations like that, the mikveh is used as a separation, to get everyone back to the right plane, so to speak.
(And to clarify how it "works" for menstruation -- it only applies to married women. The day your period starts, you start counting days, and you and your husband can't touch each other. On the twelfth day, as long as you haven't had any blood for at least five days, you go to the mikveh. You immerse three times and say a blessing, and then you and your husband can touch again. The mikveh is definitely NOT meant as a physical cleansing -- you've got to take a shower or bath and get totally clean before going in, so that the water can touch all over your body, rather than being blocked by dirt or knotted hair or whatever. And the water itself is supposed to be "living water" -- either from rain or from a moving source, like a river, and not drawn by human hands. Most mikvehs have a container to collect rainwater and mix a little bit of that in with heated tap water -- just the little bit is enough to count. There's a really beautiful new mikveh near Boston -- pictures at http://www.mayyimhayyim.org/aboutus_photos.asp?page=aboutus I've never actually been to one, since I'm not married yet, but I've heard that some of the older ones are kind of ugly or not terribly clean-looking -- there are a few near where I grew up, and my mother has one that she likes, and will only go to the others if the one she likes is totally booked up.)
I don't think Judaism is inherently more or less feminist than any other patriarchal faith.
I agree with this, and I think it's a little unhelpful to count and compare sexist passages of religious texts and declare one more feminist than the other. All the Abrahamic religions contain such a variety of belief, practice and interpretation that I think it is unfair to try and essentialize them and make sweeping generalisations about "Judaism", "Christianity" or "Islam".
Sometimes I think critics of religions do exactly as fundamentalists do: they pick certain practices or quotations, declare them representative and condemn whichever religion wholesale. Fundamentalists pick the parts which suit their (usually patriarchal) outlook and ignore the complexities of the whole canon, declaring their version to be the only path to heaven.
My particular interest is in Islamic Studies and Islam often gets branded as the "least feminist" of the Abrahamic religions, and while it's important to condemn terrible anti-woman practices committed in the name of Islam I think it's a fallacy to dismiss it as rotten at the core. Suggesting Judaism is somehow "more feminist" at its heart is as much of a fallacy.
- from a concerned atheist :)
I balance Catholicism and feminism the same way I balance Catholicism and being a physicist/high school science teacher. It's not simple and I do struggle with it.
The biggest struggle I've had with feminism and Catholicism was during my marriage preparation sessions. We were told in a very specific way that my husband is masculine and that means he thinks and acts THIS way. We were told I am feminine and therefore I think and act THAT way, and we need to be accepting of those differences. I was really hurt by this because in my daily life I don't often follow the social, communal behaviors of stereotypical women, instead I think in ways rather linearly and logically -- I would say like a scientist, they would say like a man. Hearing that my perception of myself didn't line up with the accepted view of the feminine made me feel like I had no place in that dual gendered society. If I felt that way, I'd hate to imagine how those ideas must make people feel who are queer in any direction.
When I said I felt hurt by that, they told me that my pursuit of science is a feminine expression of a search for beauty.
Yeah. I chose to focus on the part where they said we need to be accepting of our differences, and not the prescription for his or my behavior.
my pursuit of science is a feminine expression of a search for beauty.
As a fellow (heh) female physicist, I just have to ask what my foot in that guy's ass is an expression of. Sorry, end of derail.
Sheesh, I was hoping this was an isolated symptom of the Catholic marriage prep class my spouse and I had to subject ourselves too ... it was just bizarre. For every "masculine" trait (such as driving the car on empty and refusing to ask for directions), I was the person who identified with them, and my spouse with the "feminine" traits (as I write this, he is cooking)! And I'm still trying to figure out what squishing ourselves into outdated gender roles has to do with God or marriage.
I knew you were in for trouble the minute you started this, Jessica. I think your blog needs someone to address religion in much the throrough way Ann addresses political issues. For a while I covered religion as a reporter and it's very to pick any bunch of yahoo fundies. The question is, however, dealing with the fact that women are very prominent -- if not powerful -- in the religious world. Somehow the movement has to come to terms with that, or find something less antagonizing to win these women over.
I agree with Kassian in her assertion that Sex and the City does not present good role models for women. As someone trying to be a good Christian (I look at it as a lifelong goal/journey), I agree that those ladies are too materialistic and self-centered. In trying to be a good Christian, I try to put God first, not self. But I still liked that show.
But Leave it to Beaver is not a good role model for women either! Kassian must be deluding herself if she truly thinks all women were happy in those roles. I'm sure some women were, and still are, and that's fine. Kassian can stay at home while Jane Doe goes out and works, they can agree to disagree, and both be happy.
My Mom was a single Mom for a while- and not because of some tv show- but because her husband was a scumbag who should be in jail. I thank God for giving her the strength to risk our lives and leave him. And I thank the feminist movement for helping make her freedom and independence possible.
Kassian must be deluding herself to seriously base her assessment of any cultural zeitgeist purely upon television shows. Sure, it can give you a gauge upon a certain part of the population, but certainly not upon everyone.
Women are sold into sexual slavery every day- they are now and they were then- I believe causes such as that, fighting against those horrific injustices of domestic violence and beyond, are entirely more worthy of such a lengthy and influential speech (and all that money). Because the belief that women are inferior belies all those unthinkable things.
I agree that "the Bible is a book written by men in a time that was unapologetically patriarchal." Since it was written by humans it is therefore imperfect, I believe, and open to interpretation.
The Bible also says don't tattoo yourself, don't eat pork or shellfish, don't plant your field with more than one kind of crop/seed, don't shave your beard, don't wear clothes of more than one material, don't eat meat in the presence of vegetarians, and that slavery is okay, etc.
Do you think Kassian abides by those rules?
Anyways, point blank period my answer is this:
I don't believe that the subjugation of anyone brings glory to God- and that is how my faith and feminism come together.
I get that the title of this post was supposed to be provocative, but for me it plays into unhelpful stereotypes about both people of faith and feminists - that people of faith (or people who love god) maybe can't be feminist and/or that feminist maybe can't really be people of faith. For me, it is like asking, "Can you be a feminist and be nice?" or "Can you be a feminist and like men?" These play into the worst stereotypes about feminists.
There is so much exciting work being done at the intersection of feminism, religion, and faith. Like much progressive work, it isn't at the top of the media agenda and is far too often drowned out by dominant, divisive voices that have more power and more money and less qualms about dominating discourses around this sort of thing. But I think an important part of feminism should be attending to the creative and exciting work being done at the intersections of feminism, religion, and faith, and working against the negative stereotypes that someone faith and feminism are antithetical.
We can, of course, critique all of the terrible, patriarchal harm and violence done in the name of religion. Just like there is all sorts of terrible harm done NOT in the name of religion. The key is not to somehow give religion an "out" but to highlight that this is just one part of religion, just like it is a part of nearly all aspects of our world and doesn't/shouldn't somehow imply that faith and feminism are not compatible.
I don't comment here often and I don't want it to somehow come across as if I am jumping in and attacking Jessica or her amazing contributions. I understand that this tension between religion and feminism has a long history, and also why many feminists perceive religion to be incompatible with feminism. I just think we need to work harder against these narratives that become self-reinforcing and make sure to affirm all the amazing work in the context of religion and feminism that is taking place. Many commenters have commented on how oppressive, patriarchal tendencies seem to dominate religious discourses, but I think it is important to acknowledge that oppressive, patriarchal discourses dominate many fields and the lack of popular representation of progressive viewpoints does not mean that they don't exist or are marginal.
Sorry for such a long comment. Thanks for all the input everyone.
Great comment! If you or any other commenters have suggestions on where to get your feminist Christian fix, I'd love to hear them - I've been trying to find some sort of blog or magazine or anything, and I know there's a lot of academic work out there, but is there anything a bit more...I don't know, enjoyable to consume? I guess what I'm getting at is: I know there's a great Jewish feminist magazine called Lilith that I've read now and then, and I'd love to see something comparable for Christian feminists.
I don't feel like you're attacking me at all, and I think your comment is great and right on. I'll definitely think about it the next time I post a piece like this one. Thanks.
I believe in God and I am a Christian, but I am also a feminist. I don't see a problem handling my feminism and my spiritual beliefs. I don't agree with the patriarchal foundations, so to speak, of Christianity. I also don't agree with their place in the 21st century, I don't agree that these patriarchal foundations should be used to keep women from educating themselves with feminism. You can still love God and worship him and be a feminist. It's not really that difficult, Christianity is about believing in Him not worshiping its foundations. Basically.
I believe in God and I am a Christian, but I am also a feminist. I don't see a problem handling my feminism and my spiritual beliefs. I don't agree with the patriarchal foundations, so to speak, of Christianity. I also don't agree with their place in the 21st century, I don't agree that these patriarchal foundations should be used to keep women from educating themselves with feminism. You can still love God and worship him and be a feminist. It's not really that difficult, Christianity is about believing in Him not worshiping its foundations. Basically.
If you are speaking about Christianity, then it is impossible. In order to be a Christian, you must accept all writings as the literal word of God. That's all there is to it. If you do not believe in any part of the bible, then you do not believe in God. If you believe in God in your own way, then you aren't a Christian. It seems pretty clear cut to me. You can find what Christianity thinks about women in
Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
1 Timothy 2:12 “a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man”
Lastly, if you are under the belief that Jesus declared that the Old Testament can be ignored, “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Or there is “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
Christianity sees women as the servants of men. That's all there is to it.
I agree with you, and this was definitely a factor in me coming to sort of despise religion and specifically Christianity (preacher's daughter). BUT I will say that I have met a fair amount of women who are both Christians and feminists.
I will say though, that you can't be a Fundamentalist Christian and a feminist. THAT is impossible. I think it really depends on one's specific beliefs, and a lot of individuals and denominations have reconciled a lot of these issues, like churches who accept gay people (and not so they can "fix" them). But I do think that fundamentalism is completely at odds with feminism and there is no way around that. If a person is to take the bible as the divine word of god, or included at the divine discretion of god, or whatever, then that persona can't possibly believe that women are equal/aren't subservient to their husbands/shouldn't be sold into slavery.
I see your point but, by that standard, no-one can be both sane and Christian. If taken as literal truth, the bible contradicts itself constantly and pretty much makes God out to be a horrible murdering tyrant(I still haven't forgiven him for Sodom and Gomorrah). The bible taken as a whole in a literal form is a religion that is both violent and cruel while maintaining that you must also love and forgive, it is also one that I doubt many would/could follow.
Luckily, no-one takes the bible literally as a whole. Even the fundamentalists I know conveniently forget the parts that contradict what they are currently saying, then, later they bring up what would contradict the previous statement, but fail to bring up the previous statement and it doesn't seem to bother them. If you ask them, they believe the bible is the literal word of God- all of it, but they never think about the bible all at once, just in bits and pieces so it works out for them.
So basically, the idea that to not take all of the bible literally all at once and to omit anything is just not really possible and no one does it. So whats wrong with focusing on the big points (love, tolerance, compassion, etc.) and not so much the ugly parts?
In order to be a Christian, you must accept all writings as the literal word of God.
I disagree. If we accepted all writings as the literal word of God, every Christian would not only be keeping kosher, but probably also have slaves and multiple wives.
Christianity, in its simplest form, means living a Christ-centered life. And as others have argued quite well above, Jesus was pretty darn feminist! :)
So how do you determine which scriptures to keep and which to ignore? Just whichever ones match up the best with modern social mores? If that's the case why not cut out the middle man and just follow humanistic principles?
(count me as one of those who think that the Abrahamic religions are at odds with feminism.)
It's not just about morals, it's also about the belief that there is a loving God, and that Jesus was the only begotten son of God who was born to die for our sins and break the gates of Hell so that in the afterlife our immortal souls will be able to be with God in Heaven.
Well, if you're the Church hierarchy you choose the scriptures that best suit your patriarchal world view and that will bolster your position of power. If you want to make a more intellectually honest endeavour of it, you can look for common themes and events throughout the gospels, taking into account the contexts in which they were written, and have a reasoned discussion about how to resolve inconsistencies.
"it's also about the belief that there is a loving God, and that Jesus was the only begotten son of God who was born to die for our sins and break the gates of Hell so that in the afterlife our immortal souls will be able to be with God in Heaven. "
I think a lot of people would argue that it isn't even necessary to believe in the divinity of Jesus (or follow the bible) to qualify as a Christian. The Doukhobors and some Unitarian-Universalists come to mind off the top of my head.
In Corinthians 1-13 Jesus says "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
I always took that as .... its great to have faith but its more important to have love. So therefore you can be Christian without believing every minute detail of the bible.
I always thought Unitarian-Universalists believed in every deity/spiritual being, monotheistic and not, including the God of Abraham, but do not consider themselves Christian. Though I know some Christians who worship at Unitarian-Universalists churches, though they don't consider themselves Unitarian-Universalists because they only believe in the God of Abraham (of the Christian variety). At least, that's how it was at the Unitarian-Universalists church I went to growing up.
Now I may be wrong so correct me if any Unitarian-Universalists who also define themselves as Christian, I would actually like to know.
In UU-ism there's no obligation to believe in every deity/spiritual being, or any for that matter. Its more an attitude that there is wisdom to be found in many places.
While my home congregation has a population that leans very heavily towards Humanism and Deism, I've personally known Wiccan, Buddhist, Christian and Catholic UUs. So long as an individual's beliefs aren't hateful or in conflict with the basic principles of Unitarian-Universalism, there isn't a problem. (Example of a problem: believing X and believing that you're the only one who could possibly have it right and everyone who doesn't believe what you do is going to hell.)
"and that Jesus was the only begotten son of God who was born to die for our sins and break the gates of Hell"
That's an unnecessarily complex plan just to save humanity from yourself...
"It's not just about morals, it's also about the belief that there is a loving God, and that Jesus was the only begotten son of God who was born to die for our sins and break the gates of Hell so that in the afterlife our immortal souls will be able to be with God in Heaven."
But what leads you to believe that the part of the Bible that talks about Jesus is truth, and not made up by men, but other parts of the Bible are made up and not true? What about the fact that Jesus was supposed to be fulfilling prophecies from the Old Testament? What about the scripture where Jesus tells us to keep the laws of the Old Testament? I just really don't get it. How can you believe in the Jesus part of the Bible as being something you know absolutely to be true, but all the rest of it is open to liberal interpretation? The text of the Bible says it is the unadulterated Word of God. If it is not, then why do you ascribe truth to any of it? I think that the majority of Christians who pick and choose about the Bible are being intellectually dishonest in one way or the other. It makes no sense to say that a book should not be considered accurate for a myriad of reasons, such as being written by men to support patriarchy, and then to go on and say that even though you don't think that the majority of the book is true, this one part is definitely true. People would laugh at you if you did that with any other book than the Bible. It's like picking "facts" out of an Ann Coulter book. The Bible is one holy book and if you think 95% of it is wrong, why do you think that 5% of it is true?
I blame brainwashing.
That may be how Christianity has evolved, but that doesn't mean that that's how it always was (it wasn't), or how it has to stay. Like any culture, or any religion, Christianity develops as different people enter the church hierarchy and engage with the meaning of religion in different ways. Christian beliefs can change as the world changes - The values and worldview endorsed by the Catholic Church changed dramatically when it started incorporating Classical philosophy into its theology. Genesis says the world was created as it is in six days, but the Catholic Church totally accepts and endorses the big bang theory. Several denominations now ordain women as priests, and the Anglican Church is in the midst of serious debate over their stance on homosexuality. To say that Christianity means one thing only is patently ridiculous. If that were the case then every form of protestantism would not be Christian ... and then which side of the schism would be considered the true Christians, Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox?
Christianity ought not to be confused with the bible, nor even with the gospels. After Jesus' death (or ascension or however you want to call it) there were people who followed his teachings, and among their leaders were women. 70 years later the Gospel of Mark was written - the first to be recorded. There were lots of Gospels, and lots of writings about Christianity, and it was centuries later until the church hierarchy decided which would be canonized and included in the Bible. If there's one thing that Jesus does consistently throughout the gospels, it's criticize religious authorities, so it would be pretty counterintuitive to think that Church leadership is without fault, or never acts in their own selfish interests, or that there's anything besides their own insistence that places them beyond scrutiny. Christian cannon was not written by Jesus, and most Christian scholars understand that the cultural context of the bible has to be taken into account. Saying that to be Christian women have to be submissive is like saying that Christians have to be anti-Semitic because the Gospel of Matthew villanizes Jews, without taking into account his audience or his purpose in writing.
One thing I forgot to mention is that the meaning of the scriptures can also change with all the translations they've gone through.
I also want to add: Saying that Christian women have to be submissive, and that Christianity means only what the hierarchy says it means is like saying that to be American one has to be a neo-conservative, fundamentalist Christian, rifle-owning capitalist, and that only the President can decide what it means to be American.
THANK you. I've been trying to find a good comparison.
THANK you. I've been trying to find a good comparison.
Macrae: I smell bullshit.
This comment doesn't warrant much more response than that.
With what part?
In order to be a Christian, you must accept all writings as the literal word of God.
That's an extremely limited definition of Christianity that leaves out the majority of the world's Christians, and it's a particularly insidious definition because it's been used over and over again by leaders of certain Protestant sects to classify Catholics as being non-Christian.
I'm going to make a guess from your post that your experience with Christianity has been heavily influenced by Fundamentalism. Am I correct?
I am a Christian and I don't hate feminist or feminism. In fact I am very thankful for the hard work that many feminist have done over the years to give women equal rights. Thanks to these women, I can own a property, vote, and pursue whatever career I wish to choose. Christianity does not place women as subjects to men. It teaches that we are equal but different to them. Because of these differences we need each other to balance the other one out. Yes wives and only wives are to submit to their husbands. The husband is not a despotic dictator but loves his wife unconditionally. Out his love the wife responds to him. She is not a doormat but can speak up and tell him when he is wrong. he listens to her input and even if she is right does what she wants to do. She is not tied to the kitchen sink barefoot and pregnant. In fact many christian women I know with families have careers outside the home. Their families come first but it is the same for the man. Soemthing that isn't spoken about even in Christian circles is that men are held to the same standard as purity as women.
Why is the supposedly equal purity standard "not spoken of" in Christian circles? The very act of "not speaking" about equal standards is in itself having a different standard.
I'll never buy the "complementary roles" thing either. As stated by others in this thread, each man and woman is an individual with their own, not "gendered", strengths and weaknesses. Men and women are different, sure, the way oak trees and maple trees are different. NOT the way fire and ice are different, as much as pop psychology/culture would have us believe. And it wouldn't be so bad if the assertion of differences didn't limit the way we encourage girls and boys in their careers/life choices, but it does.
Nice that it's "OK" to work outside the home now and women don't have to be doormats. STILL BAD if they have to play a secondary (submit to husband) role in a marriage. Just because it's not as bad doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Luckily for Christian feminists, I don't think that this is the way Christianity has to be.
Ways that my religion has informed my feminism:
Taught me that women can save their communities (Esther) and shape the future of their people (sometimes in satisfyingly gory ways, too -- Judith and Yael.)
Taught me that women can rely on each other (Ruth and Naomi.)
Taught me that menstruation isn't something gross or dirty, but something holy. (mikveh laws)
Taught me that, athletically, girls can do anything boys can do (many many years of Jewish summer camp.)
Gave me lots of examples of powerful contemporary or almost-contemporary women (Golda Meir, Henrietta Szold, Hannah Arendt.)
And I'm forever thankful to the rabbi at our synagogue when I was a kid, who would always take the time to listen to whatever anyone had to say, even if the person saying it was just a little girl. (We got a new rabbi when I was 12, and I remember telling my mother that I didn't like him, because "The old rabbi treated kids like people. The new rabbi treats kids like kids.")
I am a Christian and a feminist. (Not a Christian but a feminist.)
Jesus was a feminist.
Paul was a feminist, too. Although some of his words are (mis)interpreted in a way that puts down women, interpreting them that way conflicts with his other words.
A lot is lost in translation as well. I've studied the "women passages" for years and conclude that they mean nearly the opposite of what is assumed. By ignoring words like "likewise" and inserting words like "submit" that were never in the original, sexist church leaders have twisted Paul's words.
It's hard to peel away cultural presumptions and read the Bible afresh, but when we do, we discover that:
* God is depicted as having a womb and breasts (Job, Psalms, etc.) but never a penis.
* Both men and women taught in the early church.
* Both men and women were elders in the early church.
* Several books of the Bible, including Esther and Hebrews, were probably written by women.
* The Bible does not promote patriarchy or female submission, but rather promotes mutual submission in a traditionally patriarchal culture.
J.
It really depends on how you define God.
If you believe that God is another word for Unconditional love, then yes.
If you believe God is non-dual, not binary, is omnipresent, then yes.
If you believe everyone is a unique emanation of that energy called God, then yes.
If you believe that we don't see, touch or physically feel everything that exists, that there is an energy that connects all living things, and you call that God,
then yes.
And if that is how you define God aka Great Spirit aka Goddess aka Energy aka Universe
then you know Go(o)d(dess) / Spirit/ Universe loves everyone- no exceptions.
And you know better than to feel or project shame, guilt or fear.
And you know that God is expressed with joy and gratitude, in healing and of course as love.
If one is good at suspension of disbelief (which I personally am not), I could see how one could love both God and feminism. What I don't get, and really don't get, is how anyone can love both religion and feminism.
The challenge is that you don't seem open to information that could change the way you perceive (judge) people who believe in Great Spirit/God/etc.
You hold on to your dis belief as strongly as those who believe.
More so if you count agnostics.
As a non-religious person who also happens to love God, the "Conversations with God" trilogy of books by Neale Donald Walsch have given me a different perspective on the "word" of God in relation to women. The book is structured as a conversation between NDW and "God."
An excerpt:
"God: The smile of the amused Goddess, experiencing limitless love and gently submitting to the laws of nature, was replaced by the stern countenance of the not-so-amused God, proclaiming power over the laws of nature, and forevermore limiting love.
NDW: Amazing. Interesting and amazing. But what is the point of telling me all this?
God: It's important for you to know you've made it all up. The idea that "might is right," or that "power is strength," was born in your male-created theological myths.
The God of wrath and jealousy and anger was an imagining. Yet, something you imagined for so long, it became real. Some of you still consider it real today. Yet it has nothing to do with ultimate reality, or what's really going on here.
NDW: And what is that?
God: What's going on is that your soul yearns for the highest experience of itself it can imagine. It came here for that purpose - to realize itself (that is, make itself real) in its experience.
Then it discovered pleasures of the flesh - not just sex, but all manner of pleasures - and as it indulged in these pleasures, it gradually forgot the pleasures of the spirit.
These, too are pleasures - greater pleasures than the body could ever give you. But the soul forgot this."
- Conversations with God, book 3, p48-49)
[2 disclaimers:
- as for teh menz, the book goes on at length just prior to this passage describing a prior matriarchy that was as oppressive to men as our current patriarchy is to women, and
- in case anyone gets a different idea from this quote, these books are highly sex-pos.]
They also have much more to say on many topics feminists concern themselves with, including sexism, marriage, patriarchy, religion, sex, capitalist oppression, and wage equality.
You would probably appreciate Ernest Holmes writings and the Science of Mind Religion aka
Ancient Wisdom New Thought.
Thanks Hara for the tips.
Notes: Notice the way the pastor pronounces the second syllable in the word "deeply."
Also, I seem to have lost my feminine bearings. Will someone please tell me what they are so that I can know them when I find them?
"I think the good book is missing some pages."
I am of the opinion that feminism is more important to me than the bible, and what it does say against me as a woman is enough for me to abandon it. A woman is responsible for all the sin in the world and a man is the redeemer of the world. I can't do it.
But I love the carols.
I also place my Feminism in front of my spiritual stuff, though I'm fascinated by what one can find by peeling back the layers of the Bible and look at the roots. One essay that really changed my perspective on who "owns" interpretations of the Bible (patriarchal elements have for too long, and they've obfuscated so much) was "Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread" by Phyllis Trible, in "Womanspirit Rising." By going back to the ancient Hebrew words, she puts that story in a whole new light and, from what I can see, in its proper context, removing much of what was read into it over time. Granted, it could be read as semantics, but I admit to loving good exegesis!
What's bothersome about this post and many comments is the disrespect (bordering on intolerance) for the unique experiences feminists of faith are sharing.
It's one way to turn people away. When in doubt, choose inclusion.
For me, religion and morality and political beliefs and faith are all part of one another, different names and facets of the same fundamental idea.
And oooh! My Lutheran (ELCA) campus pastor, an awesome woman who is totally my mentor, just pointed me in the direction of a conference entitled "Transformative Lutheran Theologies: Feminist, Womanist, and Mujerista Perspectives." I'm going in January. This is gonna be aweesome!
I have never had the slightest problem reconciling religious belief with feminism. Then again, my church* has been ordaining women since the middle of the 19th century (we're now the first and probably only denomination with a majority female clergy), so a lot of the "wives, submit yourselves to your husbands" junk was dealt with quite some ago...
*Unitarian Universalist, aka the church that's even more liberal than the UCC.
Since there's not much to add to the eloquent feminists who posted before me, all I'll add is this-
As a pro-choice, bisexual, Catholic feminist the answer is yes, I can love God, I can follow Jesus, and I can be a feminist.
This doesn't mean I'm always a "good" Catholic in the eyes of my chosen church, or that I think my church is perfect.
But if I don't stick around to try to fix it, then what? I feel that I am called to be a feminist "witness" to Catholicism, calling the church to repent for the injustices it perpetuates against its female and queer members.
What does it mean to be Catholic, if not to follow or at least believe in Catholic teachings? Why aren't you a member of some other church that more aligns with your views? I'm an Atheist. Can I be Catholic? I just disagree with a lot of stuff about God and Jesus and so forth, but really, I'm a Catholic, so I'm going to stick around and try to bring the others to my side. I don't get it.
Woah there. If I disagreed with "a lot of stuff about God and Jesus," I sure as hell would try to find a faith better suited to my (clearly not Christian) beliefs. But if what I disagree with is not part of the essence of the faith of my religion but rather with aspects of its history, certain (highly disputable) teachings, and current hierarchy, and I STILL think it's worth fighting for, then I'm staying put.
What does it mean to be Catholic, if not to follow or at least believe in Catholic teachings? Why aren't you a member of some other church that more aligns with your views? I'm an Atheist. Can I be Catholic? I just disagree with a lot of stuff about God and Jesus and so forth, but really, I'm a Catholic, so I'm going to stick around and try to bring the others to my side. I don't get it.
Your opposition to the involvement of dissenting believers in a religious institution sounds suspiciously similar to the old "love it or leave it" brand of patriotism flung at dissenters.
To understand why somebody would want to belong to a church that doesn't perfectly align with her views, imagine "government" replaced "church" and "politics" replaced "religion" in all the discussions here. Anyway, for many people, the future of one's church is up there with the future of her country.
I for one am not religious, but I want to do all I can for the future of civil rights here in the U.S. -- for myself and others -- and wouldn't move to some nation with statistically better records on women's rights just because my government's beliefs don't perfectly mesh with my own right now.
Just as a Catholic feminist might fight for federal equal pay legislation, so she might fight for the ordination of female priests. She might do so because she finds something promising and hopeful in both institutions -- enough for her to have stuck around, realizing it's much easy to enact radical change from within in institutions like that. (It helps, too, that the U.S. and the Catholic Church are two of the most influential institutions in the world -- and both lend themselves to laypersons' involvement.)
But really, isn't this stuff sort of obvious? You say you don't get it, but surely that must make sense: wanting to change something one cares about deeply for the better. I get the impression that obstinacy, not just ignorance, may have fueled the preceding comment you made. If it didn't, my apologies, and hopefully this clarified something.
If your religious faith is really important to you, the church is kind of like your family. You don't throw the whole thing out because it's flawed, you love it anyway and try to help fix the flaws where possible, or just to help it heal in the little way that one person can. If you're an atheist I don't expect you to understand it.
In short, because I do believe in the essential teachings of Catholicism - the full humanity and divinity of Jesus, a trinitarian God, the Bible as a holy book (including the Catholic teaching on the need for interpretation and not a literal/word for word reading without understanding the cultural context it was written in), and the communion of saints. Sexual teachings aren't part of the creed to which one affirms "I believe" as a Catholic. I don't HAVE to agree with the church's teachings on sexuality to be considered Catholic - so says the church, even. They are lesser, non-dogmatic teachings which can change, and have throughout the church's history.
I got an A in grad level Moral Theology, I know this stuff. ;)
Right on! I too am Catholic and feminist, and came to the same conclusion when I was a teen trying to decide whether or not to be confirmed (this is the last sacrament of initiation into the adult community after baptism and the eucharist). I knew I could never embrace the Catholic Church's patriarchy or heterosexism, but I decided that the personal struggle was worth the opportunity to help change things. It might be harder to explain myself to both my fellow feminists and conservative Catholic friends and family, but I have a better chance at effecting change from inside than leaving Catholicism and then demanding it to change.
I preface what I'm about to write by saying that it delves into mild christian New Testament theology. I'm not here to preach, and I certainly am not suggesting anyone must buy in to what I'm about to write. There are lots of ways to love God, and lots of faiths that profess to do so. I'm a member of one of them, Christianity, and so I'm speaking from that experience without the intention of drowning out other points of view. That said, I'll be addressing one of the points that certain religious figures often use to suggest women ought be subservient to men in all things. Rubbish, of course. In any case...
My wife and I both attend a Methodist church in Suburban Pennsylvania in the eastern US. She's a self described feminist, as am I.
I've grown weary of misogyny in the Church, which is one of the things that brought us to our church of choice, at which we are now members. We are spiritually led by both a man and a woman, senior and assistant pastors, respectively. (This is fairly common for large Methodist churches, I am told.) There's no fear of women as spiritual leaders here, which is a plus.
In any case, back to that misogyny of which we'd grown weary: The piece of the bible one sees rolled out most frequently-- especially at weddings --are bits and pieces of Ephesians 5.
(Eph 5:22-24)
'Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.'
Of course, Paul continues:
(Eph 5:25-30)
'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body.'
Two verses instructing wives, five instructing husbands.
What gets often times missed is Eph 5:21 which reads:
'Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.'
The verb Paul chose for 'submit' in its original Greek is present tense middle voice. Present tense of course meaning we should do this in the moment, at every possible moment. Middle voice meaning we do it for ourselves, of our own accord. A willfull, self-investment of submission to another.
Some would say that Paul's instruction to the wife to submit to the husband gives the husband supreme authority over the wife. I refute this entirely. I'm going to begin to examine the relationship from the Husband-as-Christ.
Christ is head of the Church? Sure he is. The Bible says he came to earth, suffered and died for our sins, and all that followed. A living sacrament allowing his chosen entry into Heaven.
That being the case, I would invite the curious to read Jesus treatment of the mother of Zebedee in Matthew 20:20-28. In it Jesus says that he cannot grant the mother's wish that her sons sit with Jesus in Heaven. It's not in his power. He goes on to explain why this is so saying:
'..."You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
If I as a husband am to love my wife as Jesus loved the Church, then I am to serve my wife as she is to submit to me. I'm here to give my life in service to her. As Jesus has done for me. Talk about a steep measure!
I'm further going to ask: should my service be conditional? Should my present-tense-middle-voice submission to my wife by contingent on her service? Reading Eph 5 above where it pertains to her, I don't get that impression at all.
Just as I can hardly claim to submit to Jesus at all times, and just as it's written that Jesus still loves me despite, so too must my love for my wife be constant and present even when she's not submitting.
In other words, I am to submit and serve my wife regardless of whether or not she's doing the same. My love and sacrifice on her behalf ought to be there at all times, no matter what. As Christ's is for me.
Wow. For me, as a Christian, and as a husband? That's huge!
Now. We could spend a good long while trying to figure out precisely what is meant by submission. It's a powerful word with a lot of connotations, especially in today's society, and ESPECIALLY among feminists.
In all the contexts in which I read it in the books concerned (Ephesians, Matthew, 1st Corinthians to some extent) it is placing the will of another above your own.
If a man and a woman, as husband and wife, place the welfare and will of the other first, and meet (as Paul suggests in Ephesians 5) 'filled with the Holy Spirit' as they submit one to the other, then what you're going to come out with is compromise brokered by God.
Any man who will honestly tell me differently, that he deserves a place in primacy in the marriage and supreme authority and sexual rights are his by dint of station ought to read Matthew 23:1-12 where Jesus speaks to the Pharisees. Prideful claims of authority don't sit well with Jesus.
Love, service and submission while filled with the Holy Spirit. That's the Husband's role. Do it. Do it always. Do it with a glad heart, and you'll be worthy of your wife's likewise.
Quite honestly... That video just grossed me out. "true women," is just as corrosive as "true men."
I'm an Atheist so my feminism and lack of religion are already in balance. I'd hate to sound like a prick, but my Atheism makes this a lot easier for me. xD
But I don't think that believing in God in the spiritual sense (Deism) contradicts Feminism. It's just religions in general that do, with their God attached to said religion (Theism), that are on shaky grounds with Feminism. The reason is simple, because men wrote the "Holy Books". Why wouldn't they try to push the idea that they are to be master of the family and the Church?
I'm not religious, but one of my closest friends is on the path to becoming a pastor. She's United Church of Christ, and currently employed by the church.
Her job? Involves HIV/AIDS outreach (including contraception education and a lot of other things) and LGBT rights work. I don't know a lot about what her day-to-day work is like, but she's told me about meetings where everyone was bashing their heads against the wall over the passage of Prop 8 (and the ones in Florida and Arkansas).
She has no problem reconciling her faith with her feminism and her progressiveness. I don't think there's any reason there needs to be a conflict; all you need is to believe that the Bible (or other holy text) was written by men with flaws and in a historical period that wasn't kind to many minority groups. There's no question in her mind that God is love, and not---never---hate. I don't believe, but I can sure as hell respect her beliefs.
This post has some pretty great timing. I'm a Catholic, attending a Catholic school, and serving as a Eucharistic minister. This has all led to a pretty good understanding of Catholicism, and I know exactly what rules I break and which ones I keep.
A week ago was the Immaculate Conception--a feast which treats us to readings and sermons about Eve, the virgin conception of Christ, and the sinless conception of Mary. It was one of the most difficult masses I've ever attended. I got so angry at how women and sexuality were portrayed. My boyfriend reminded me that the Bible is a book written for a certain audience, and I get that--there's a reason things were written that way at the time. But how much has Catholic faith influenced treatment of women in the Western world since the death of Christ? How much damage could have been avoided if we hadn't help up these impossible standards for "good" sexuality, or punished the first female sinner by kicking her full out of paradise?
My faith and my feminism provide constant challenges, separately and together. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it makes you really, really, understand what it is you believe. I believe in a Catholicism of love, of loving your neighbors and yourself and the world. Every one of us are going to have some sins to account for when it's all done here, and if my sins are ones I committed standing up for justice for women, well, then I'll be quite proud to have them. The greater difficulties come from facing institutional religion, and other believers--what do you do when a woman complains about servers wearing lace in mass as "too sexy?" What about family who can't know your political beliefs, because they wouldn't accept you as Catholic anymore? What about an organization that tells me my body isn't mine to control (as far as I'm concerned, when Adam gave us that rib, there was no reciprocity there--he doesn't get to call the shots now!)
It's a constant challenge. Like most other ideologies we have in our lives.
(Also, fascinating discussion of Judaism; I had no idea there could be that kind of flexibility Orthodox practice. In my class, we were discussing how the ritual of the mikvah is less statement on women's role in respect to men, and more an attempt to continue a faith so strongly tied to blood line. It's not only the bath, but denying sex to a married couple for the week OF and the week FOLLOWING a period is pretty well linked to increasing the couples' chance of conceiving. Craziness)
I'm not religious although I grew up in a Christian household, so I'm familiar with the preachy, fake, condescending attitude of speakers such as the woman in the "You've Come A Long Way, Baby" video.
I love how some Christians speakers start citing the roots of words. As if that makes the speaker more believable. Ya know, cuz it makes 'em sound smart. "Patriarchy was formed from the Greek words Pater and Arche, just in case you wanted to know. Not sure how that supports my argument in any way, but hey I'll throw it out there. And revolution is from revolutio, in case we have any Latin speakers in here."
And watch her face at 24:14. It looks like she just ate a lemon. She contorts, er smiles like that the whole video.
Lastly, the cases she makes against feminism ... don't really sound all that bad. I wouldn't be surprised if some audience members started to question her. She just makes feminism sound very logical. Except the part about women blaming ALL of their problems on men. I don't know about the 60s, but I know we definitely don't do that now.
The short answer to the question is no.
To me, it is like asking if you can be a vegetarian and still love eating meat. Eating meat perpetuates the very thing you are opposed to (animal cruelty) just as patriarchal religions (particularly Abrahamic religions) perpetuate the very thing we as feminists are supposed to be opposed to: patriarchy.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Richard Dawkins fan and am not necessarily anti-religion. I think that there are some religions (such as Buddhism, for example) that are more tolerable than others and I do not think that being an adherent of any one belief system necessarily makes someone a bad person, but I do think that it is dangerous when you follow an arbitrarily set up system of laws and social conduct that cannot be verified and has no real bearing on the world outside of that belief set. If you want to be a good person and give back to the society in which you live, why not call yourself a humanist and be done with it? Why bring in some all-knowing, all-seeing creature from centuries ago whose existence cannot be verified and whose judgment cannot, by definition, be questioned? What about the ancient gods like Aphrodite, Hades, and Zeus? Shall we follow their decrees as well? Shall I reproduce until my organs fail because Isis says it would be good? How much "going forth and multiplying" is enough? And why do we justify homophobia from Leviticus when eating shrimp is also considered an abomination and anything a woman touches during her menses should, according to Leviticus, be destroyed?
One thing I will never understand is how people can pick and choose which laws to follow from their religions and which ones not to. It seems that our decisions in this regard are largely informed by the social mores of the day (which are not always non-secular). This seems very strange to me because if religion is supposed to be "The Truth" or "The Way", if it keeps on changing through the years, what does that say for the truth of its message?
I will assume we are talking about the Christian god here and not Vishnu or Buddha or Yahweh or Allah. To me, having grown up in the church, having a Catholic childhood, a fundamentalist Christian adolescence (Assembly of God...Sarah Palin's church for the uninitiated), attending a Christian school for a time and having a mostly Christian family, I am quite confident in stating that while Christianity does not create all the patriarchy we know, it does not take any real or meaningful steps towards getting rid of it. Anyone familiar with Paul's writing knows the misogyny that he perpetuates and for those who say that he is "misunderstood", I only have to point to people like Jerry Falwell and the Quiverfull movement to show you how dangerous this sort of dogma is. Misunderstood? Maybe, maybe not, but I have a hard time believing that someone that tells the women followers of his church to essentially put up and shut up was really just misinterpreted. How do you misinterpret something like that? Maybe he really was a misogynist patriarch and maybe we really shouldn't keep on trying to justify what he and his ilk had to say about women in this, the 21st century. Seriously...
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor 14: 34, 35).
And don't forget...
Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2: 11-14)
Yes, that's something I want to be a part of. [/sarcasm]
Also, to be a member of a particular religion means also to belong to that community of likeminded followers. Buddhism calls this the Sangha and advises the followers to take refuge in the community as a matter of doctrine, just like Christianity discourages any member from leaving the church. This means belonging to the same community as Rush Limbaugh, Pope Benedict XVI, Ted Haggard, and George Bush (I know there are people who will debate me on that last one...). To be fair, this list also includes people like Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Joan of Arc. There are "good" and "bad" people in every group but as a member of any group, you have to square with the other members and their beliefs. If your belief system is allowing and indeed encouraging your neighbour to beat his wife and children (spare the rod, spoil the child...), is that really a belief system you want to associate yourself with? Furthermore, is that something you want to fix or should it be saved? Is it worth saving at all? I'd wager no. If the fundamentals of something like this are severely flawed (such as the creation myth and the fall of "man" due to Eve's supposed sin [pursuing knowledge for herself]), if you take out those fundamental flaws, what do you have left?
I believe that religion is one of the few remaining sacred cows (forgive the pun) remaining in our culture that we still tiptoe around. We can critique patriarchy, we can critique matriarchy, we can critique our politics and our social codes and morals, but we cannot critique the granddaddy of them all: religion. Why? Because someone will get offended? Those of us who are considered outside of the clutches of the patriarchal mindset can and should critique the patriarchy for the benefit of those still in it. Likewise, those of us outside the mentality of patriarchal religion can and should critique it for the benefit of those still in it as well. If something is not strong enough to withstand honest criticism, then its existence cannot be honestly justified.
Personally, I am a theological noncognitivist so I find this conversation all a little strange because on the philosophical level, there are so many interpretations of what god is or what god means that we can never truly be sure of what we mean when we talk about god and god's existence (or perhaps more appropriately, our knowledge of it) really has no bearing on our day-to-day life and thus is largely a waste of time. God did not stop Joan of Arc from being burned alive or Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow from being stoned to death. God did not burn Joan of Arc alive and he did not stone Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow to death. People did. Patriarchal men did. Patriarchal men, empowered by patriarchal law and patriarchal religion, did. God has nothing to do with it. I believe the question here is more to do with whether or not one can follow a patriarchal religion and still be a feminist or not as god cannot be defined. The concept of god is not cognitively meaningful but the concept of a religion where men are god (god was created in man's own image, after all) is cognitively meaningful and incredibly socially relevant. Indeed, it is increasingly one of the most important issues of our time and affects each and every one of us every single day.
So...can you honestly believe that men are god and simultaneously believe that men and women are equal?
NO.
Recommended reading:
Rosalind Miles: Who Cooked the Last Supper
Rita M. Gross: Feminism and Religion
Thomas Buergenthal: Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women
Joanne Carlson Brown: Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse: A Feminist Critique
Gerda Lerner: The Creation of Patriarchy
You stated this far more eloquently than I could have hoped to.
I'm frustrated that you see things as a "choosing which laws to follow" kind of way. There are many reasons that denominations disagree, why some are more patriarchal than others, and it's not about a few people deciding to ditch parts of the Bible and form a new group.
Exegetical studies wrestle with interpretations, translations, and seek God's guidance in the original meanings of holy texts. But the texts themselves don't create the religion - they are part of it, as are church councils (like Nicaea), historical influences, and other.
You seem very cerebral, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness in your argument. And, following the logic in your argument, you can't be religious and feminist. Following your argument, though, I would choose to be spiritual, and love God, and choose to honor God as best I can.
I'm not trying to be catty - I'm sorry, using the internet is so often not a way to communicate effectively - it's just - I don't see things the way you do, and I don't hear any room in your argument for people who understand religion, for example, or even a philosophical concept of God, differently than what you've presented.
**********
I think what the whole issue comes down to is how feminism and religious expression can co-exist. Some of us have no problem loving God and being feminist, but some do have a problem. That seems to be the root of the dilemma that's ensued in these comments.
Is feminism about inclusion (as someone said above) of women, or are we going to exclude people who don't wholly reject any part of patriarchal culture? It's a tough question.
I struggle with this A LOT because I am Catholic and am very spiritual. I think a big difference is that between religion (organized) and faith (personal). I think about the religion and what it means to me: my personal interpretation of G-d (which is pretty standardly Catholic) is more important to me that someone else's interpretation (which is, by the way, what the whole Bible is constructed of). I think it's irresponsible to blindly believe-it's not a leap of faith, it's ignorant and that's not what G-d wants.
I think of religion the way I think about feminism (notice I didn't capitalize either word) in that it's more important how I interpret it than the theories and politics behind it.
You can't really expect people to be rational about their faith as religion is inherently irrational by its very nature.
Personally I think that organized religion causes more harm than good to our modern societies. I certainly do not claim to know or understand or preach the mysteries of our universe and our existence but I am absolutely confident that organized religion as we know it is detrimental to humanity on a large scale. I'm a bona fide anti-thiest.
I think that religions are designed to be oppressive, discriminatory and self serving. Looking at history religion was conveniently created as a way of not only explaining the world but controlling the general population.
Faith and religion are not logical, not rational and ultimately very private. Can someone have a fundamentalist view of a major organized religion and embrace feminism at the same time? I really don't think so. Someone's private spirituality, sure, but the tone of this video and any religious pandering towards women is antifeminist imo.
I respect people's decision to worship/believe whatever they like but I always find myself shaking my head when progressives or self identified feminists praise the glory of a Christian god while ignoring the stories, the teachings, the messages of that particular holy scripture and ignoring the actions and tone set forth by the leadership of the organized religion they choose to follow.
THANK you. My thoughts exactly.
Jesus was a revolutionary. He hung out with lepers and prostitutes. He was anti-authority and anti-materialist. He was a peacenik. He was anti-racist. He was inclusive of women. He radically devalued the status of those in positions of power. He preached compassion and love. This is not a left-wing re-interpretation of the Bible. Jesus was pretty darn radical. The reason why he was crucified was that he was a threat to the status quo.
These are the themes that recur throughout the various tellings of Jesus' life. They are far more important than anything that what was written about him since.
If Jesus were alive today he would rebel against the Christian church, it's wealth and it's political power. Patriarchy does not originate from religion, it uses religion as a vehicle. The original Christian church had women in leadership positions. Patriarchy warped a religion that was about inclusiveness and equality.
I have no difficulty reconciling being Christian with being feminist. I do have problems reconciling my identity as a Catholic with my feminism. I'm Ukrainian Catholic (as opposed to Roman Catholic), and identifying as a member of a religion that the Soviets tried to squash out is very much tied up with my identity as a Ukrainian-Canadian. Being Catholic for me is all about being part of the local community, practicing cultural traditions, and maintaining a cultural link to the country that my grandparents fought for. I couldn't care less about what the Pope has to say (if JP2 was still alive maybe I would, but not Benedict), but it can be very difficult to separate religion from ethnic identity.
Personally, I walked away from Catholicism, and Christianity in general, before I had to address the misogyny in my church head on. I walked away after Benedict XVI ascended to the papacy, and very much because of him, but after a while of being outside of the Church, I came to see myself as more of an agnostic than a Christian. I loved the ritual, but I just cannot commit to believing in the existence (or, for that matter, the non-existence) of a higher power.
Had I stayed on, my feminism, juxtaposed against my Catholicism, would have become problematic, that much I am sure. I don't think that Catholicism is necessarily patriarchal, but the current leadership is undeniably and ludicrously so. To be a Catholic and a feminist at the same time, you have to ignore the leadership on certain issues. You have to believe that the Catholic Church will reform itself eventually, not just with regard to specific issues, but also its very mode of working through these complex issues. That's going to take a very long time, longer than any of us have on this planet.
I think being able to be both Catholic and a feminist depends on how much you expect from your faith community in terms of affirmation of you and your values. For example, if you're gay or trans, and you want to be affirmed by your church community, don't expect this from the Catholic Church. If you're willing and able to keep a lower profile, then you might be able to get away with being a Catholic, but it will be a struggle. Another example: if you're pro-choice, don't expect that view to be affirmed out in the open. Many, many Catholics are pro-choice, but the anti-choice Catholics are loud and unyielding, and they see the church community as their turf.
Ultimately, being both Catholic and a feminist is a compromise, and only you can decide if that compromise is reasonable, or even possible. I, for one, am glad that I don't have to deal with that question anymore.
An atheist myself, I'm not surprised to hear lots of Christian women proudly supporting their feminism here. But I think a more relevant question regarding the True Woman movement, is can you be a fundamenlist/evangelical Christian and a feminist? Everyone has a right to hold a varying set of beliefs and I know loads of religious progressives, but the regions of in the Western world where women (and gays) enjoy the most rights are overwhelmingly the least dogmatically religious.
I don't think it's possible to possible be a fundamentalist anything and be a feminist even if for no other reason than the fact, or perhaps what I perceive to be the fact, that fundamentalist religions are inherently misogynistic and anti-feminist. I think that fundamentalists and most (perhaps not all) pro-lifers who claim to be feminists are clearly coopting feminism to (ultimately) drive a wedge through it and discredit it.
Interesting question but for me the answer is emphatically NO.
There seem to be precious few atheists on this thread but perhaps that's to be expected. For me, my feminism is based on rationality, i.e. the simple fact that every human being deserves the same human rights. Misogyny and patriarchy by contrast are based upon prejudice, emotional reasoning, stereotyping, scapegoating and any other irrational way of thinking you can name. Patriarchy is a big con - we are encouraged to believe that there are fundamental differences between the sexes and call this 'common sense' (when in fact studies show that there are far more similarities than differences, and a massive overlap). We are encouraged to put aside our senses and our reasoning and just 'believe' that women and men are different, that men are better and more deserving of power and influence, that women are only good for reproducing and nurturing, that women should defer to men's authority, etc.
Religious faith also demands the same behaviour from people - it is irrational, relying on the blind faith in a supernatural being without any evidence to back it up. If a person feels love for their planet, their fellow humans, animals or indeed just wakes up feeling happy and glad to be alive one morning, this is interpreted as "there is a god" rather than simply "I feel good" and is therefore the epitomy of emotional reasoning. It demands we do not question the rules and rather submit to a higher authority. It demands we ignore our senses and reasoning and just 'believe' that there is a god, that this god created us, he is watching and judging us, etc.
In this fundamental sense, religion is the same as patriarchy. Both systems demand unquestioning belief, both are based not on evidence but emotional reasoning and assumptions far removed from reality. Both utilise faulty logic to keep people believing, often resorting to 'well it just is' or 'because we/god says so'. Both use threats to scare people into conforming when persuasion doesn't work (religions use the idea of hell, patriarchy threatens women with loss of life, limb and love if they don't comply). Both have harsh rules about sex. Both have been created, administered and upheld by men.
Feminism by contrast is supported by rationality. Our reasoning tells us that out of two human beings, one cannot automatically be morally superior. Our reasoning and evidence tells us that the differences between males and females are small, and that there is an overlap between genders in any case. Our reasoning tells us that if female children are showing intelligence and leaving school with excellent grades, then they ought to hold 50% of the positions of power and influence in the world. It also tells us that for the same work done, the same money ought to be paid.
There are so many examples of the ways in which reasoning and rationality are the friend of feminism. More often than not when someone is sexist they are spouting assumptions which have nothing to do with reality. This is indeed what angers me and many other feminists - the fact that people seem to be so willing to believe in total nonsense.
Religion is the enemy of rationality for all the reasons I have said in this post, not least that for its existence it actually depends on an abandonment of rational thought. Therefore I can only conclude (and did so when I was still at school) that religion is also the enemy of feminism. Religion is simply not necessary to enjoy the world, to care about others, and to have a moral sense. But more than this, it is damaging because it fosters the idea that belief without evidence is good and virtuous. This idea can only hurt women and other oppressed groups.
The evidence bears this out as religions as a rule have consistently discriminated against women and other minority groups. To be a feminist and concurrently hold a religious faith must involve a high degree of cognitive dissonance or 'doublethink' as George Orwell called it. To me religion and feminism are opposite directions on the path of human mental development.
My boyfriend puts it another way: "You're a feminist, but you believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing bearded father figure in the sky whose approval you constantly seek."
"But more than this, it is damaging because it fosters the idea that belief without evidence is good and virtuous. This idea can only hurt women and other oppressed groups."
I had really never thought of religion in this way. I too am an atheist, but I'm pretty sure there haven't been a lot of atheist commentors because religious people tend to not like atheists telling them they are irrational. Just as I imagine atheists don't like people attempting to convert them to religion or telling them they are going to hell.
I'm fine with spirituality, but I hate organized religion. Organized religion has orchestrated and continues to orchestrate oppression, misinformation, and validation of patriarchy. A man is your savior, and he had to be born from a pure virgin woman?
Not to mention that the whole Jesus savior thing makes no logical sense. SO, God created the world, and he is all knowing, so he knew that the people he created would sin. But, he created them anyway, knowing that by creating a creature with free will and giving him the opportunity to sin it was going to lead to evil and suffering. If God is good, how could he have put a plan in motion knowing it would lead to evil and suffering? Then, on top of this, the way he is going to "fix" the suffering he set into motion is to send himself, in the form of a man on earth, to be killed, so that he can absorb your sins? But he didn't really die, he comes back, because you know, he's God and was incapable of dying in the first place. Seriously, wtf. I'm sure pretty much everyone on this board laughs at the beliefs of Scientology. But an assisted suicide and a zombie Jew, that's nothing to laugh at!
It makes my brain hurt when otherwise rational people cultivate and cling to irrational and harmful beliefs.
But I'm preaching directly to the choir hear. (haha)
Yes, this is always where I end up after trying to start a conversation about religion on any other terms. Just shaking my head, saying "you believe what? Have you really sat down and thought about this?"
I guess that's why these discussions never go anywhere. Some people just can't be reasoned with.
earthling, you have a very narrow view of religion. You say "Misogyny and patriarchy by contrast are based upon prejudice, emotional reasoning, stereotyping, scapegoating and any other irrational way of thinking you can name," but then you go on to stereotype religion.
There are many churches (I'm going to be talking pretty much just about Christianity here, because it's what I know) who focus on the teachings of Jesus, as in simple things like loving thy neighbor, helping those less fortunate, being humble, etc.
Fundamentalists like these are the loudest voices out there, but they're NOT the only ones (probably because they forgot about that humble thing). Just before I moved away from my old church, two of the most active members were an interracial gay couple, one of whom often cross-dressed. At my dad's church (granted, Unitarian, still a religion), we definitely had a whole day of "finding the goddess within you" (men and women). These are probably not people's stereotypical views of religion, but they're all around.
People seem to be saying on this thread that everyone in a religion must think alike. I can assure you, this is NOT the case in many churches. Most churches don't have any political agenda (other than maybe helping the poor, if you can call that political) and don't force people to just shut up and believe in God. Many pastors know that religion is a personal thing, and help people through their own personal journey.
To clarify, I'm not religious. Since I was 13, I've only been to church for Christmas eve. But I appreciated the great people I met when I did go to church, and I have many fine friends who are devoutly religious and still are loudmouth feminists. It disturbs me to see people insulting all religion, or saying it is antithetical to feminism, when in reality, that kind of thinking is what is antithetical to feminism.
Think of it this way....
College frat boy only sees skimpy sorority sisters at bars... he assumes all women are bimbos. You say, "Hey, you're an idiot."
Now, seeing all these fundamentalists ads, backed by big money with no regards to what Jesus really said, and calling all religion crap? You get the picture.
(Also, people don't seem to be particularly aware that religion is not a set-in-stone thing, though yes some people view it that way. Has anyone ever taken a religious studies class? It is truly an academic subject, just like women's studies.)
Becca, you say I have a narrow view of religion and I am stereotyping it, likening my post to someone who thinks all women are bimbos.
Let me correct you. Stereotyping is when you make an irrational judgement by taking certain characteristics of a person/thing and assuming other characteristics are also present. Like taking the caracteristic 'female' and assuming 'likes shoes', for example. This would be false, unless you happened to know for a fact that this particular female had a large shoe collection.
What I said about religion, in contrast, was not an assumption. It is a fact that every religion starts with the idea that there is a supernatural being or beings which have created our world. This belief is irrational as at no point has there ever been any evidence that this is the case. Therefore when I said religion is irrational I was stating a fact, I was not stereotyping it. It would be the same as accusing me of stereotyping the sky if I said it was blue.
If you can name one religion that doesn't posit the existence of a supernatural being, spirit, god or gods, heaven or some other unsubstantiated idea like reincarnation then please tell me and I will stand corrected.
And by the way, just because you have friends who are religious and they happen to be nice, caring people, that doesn't mean a) their god actually exists or b) it is their religion that has made them nice, caring people.