Category Archives: Women

Even the appearance of evil

Posted by Amy in LGBT Issues, Women and tagged with , ,

By Josef Seibel (Portrait of two young women) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

A few days ago, Stephanie Drury (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) posted a link to Set Apart Girl Magazine.  Nearly everything about it makes me cringe.  Even the title is awful.  I have a list of words that, as a woman, I do not want to be called.  At the top of the list is using female as a noun when referring to humans.  Second only to that is calling adult women girls.  Right off the bat this magazine has me wanting to punch something.

Feel free to read through the magazine if you want to, but bring boots and a shovel.  Meanwhile, I’m going to highlight the article that grabbed my attention: “Unnatural Affections.”  It’s about exactly what you think it is–and yet also not.

“Unnatural Affections” is the tragic tale of a friendship gone “too far.”  The young woman in the story, Sarah, has developed a friendship with one of her college classmates, Meredith.  The relationship is close, and it includes long talks, Bible studies, and physical affection.  And then the nightmare spiral into Meredith stalking and controlling Sarah . . . oh, wait. No, that’s not what happens.

What actually happens is that Sarah’s family and her boyfriend become “concerned” for her that she’s spending too much of the wrong kind of time with Meredith.  Her boyfriend, in a creepy-as-hell turn, even demands that she choose between him and her friendship.  In the end, Sarah caves and ditches Meredith so as not to hamper her future intimacy with her boyfriend (when they’re properly married, of course).  Just to prove what a parasite Meredith is, she apparently gloms onto another young woman to repeat her pattern.

This is a lovely little morality play, but there is so much wrong with it that I’m hardly sure where to start.  First, the relationship as described is not in any way abusive.  I’ve been in an abusive friendship, and it doesn’t look anything like that.  It looks like a friend who not only demands your time and attention but deliberately sabotages your other relationships.  It looks like an expectation to praise her every move.  It looks like her telling you that she thinks your boyfriend–who is well-liked by everyone else–is “condescending” and “too smart.”  It looks gossiping about you behind your back, cleverly disguising it as “prayer requests.”  It looks like demanding you give up friendships with people she doesn’t like.  It does not look like hugs and hair-braiding and long talks cuddling up while watching a movie.

Second, we women cannot win.  No matter what we do, we are seen as impure.  If we spend too much time with a boyfriend, we’re putting him before God.  If we spend too much time with another woman, we’re putting her before God.  If we have sex before we’re married, we’re “damaged goods.”  If we have a physically affection friendship, we’re failing to keep our bodies pure.  Essentially, young women are to be starved of loving touch until marriage, at which point it will magically become okay–as long as it’s only with our husbands.  What kind of sick joke is that?  It sounds like another variation of body = bad, soul = good.

Third, the whole thing is a clear example of why I’m still stubbornly writing about homophobia in the church.  See, here’s the thing.  A person doesn’t even have to actually be gay to find him- or herself victimized by the church.  One only has to give the appearance of doing something the church disapproves of.  In this case, the Big Bad was having a physically affectionate relationship with a friend; The article even refers to it as “subtly sensual.”

As a youth, I heard all about how I should “avoid even the appearance of evil” and “not cause my brothers to stumble.”  That meant I had to obsess over every single action I took, because I might somehow do something that could be interpreted as sinful.  I recall a youth leader explaining that it meant she didn’t drink wine when out at a restaurant because she couldn’t be sure there wasn’t a teenager or a recovering alcoholic in the restaurant, and she didn’t want to give the teen the wrong impression or tempt the alcoholic to drink.  That may sound extreme, but it’s another example of exactly what’s going on in the story of Sarah and Meredith.  It doesn’t matter one bit whether they were actually in a sexual relationship–what matters is that they appeared as though they were. 

I appreciate that some people may be hurt by having assumptions made about their sexuality (actually, no, I really don’t care about that at all; suck it up).   But I’m far more concerned about the message this sends to LGBTQ people: “You are so bad that we don’t even want anyone doing stuff that looks like you.”  Is there anything else the church believes to be sin that’s treated with such utter contempt?

Yesterday, some of the people I follow on Twitter were expressing the desire to stop coddling people who are not LGBTQ allies–to stop pretending that it’s just a difference of opinion and that it’s okay.  I’m all for that.  It’s not remotely okay to find every possible way to shame and humiliate people for who they are.  It’s not okay to tell lies about LGBTQ people from the pulpit.  It’s not okay to attach unnecessary subtext to a friendship based on those lies.  It’s not okay to sit back and tolerate other people doing it, either.

To the Sarahs and Merediths of the world, there is nothing wrong with you.  Whether it truly is just a friendship or whether you’ve discovered you’re in love with each other, take both as blessings.  You’ve found a valuable gift if you have a friend or a lover with whom you can talk about your love for God and the Bible.  Go find your joy in one another, and screw the loveless people who shame you for what you have.

Barnes & Noble, Harry Potter, and the Smurfette Principle: Part 3

Posted by Amy in Books, Feminism, Social Justice, Writing and tagged with , , , , , ,

Pretty sure she had something to do with the on-shelf options at B&N.

This is the last part of the series on using men/boys as the default for readership.  Read the first two parts here and here.  Today, I’m offering some solutions.  We can’t solve everything, but this might be a start.

Time for the Big Question: What if Harry Potter had been a girl? (TRUTH)

I don’t just mean would we have read the books or would she have become a cultural icon.  I’m asking what would have changed if the story had been about a girl.

As written, the whole point of the story is The Boy Who Lived.  My guess is that if the protagonist were a girl, even though the story would have remained the same, in our cultural consciousness it would have become about The Girl Who Lived.  That is to say, suddenly it would have been about her femaleness rather than her spirit or her heart or her resolve.  (I like to give J. K. Rowling credit that this would not have been her doing, but that of cultural constructs that dictate male as neutral, objective, and default.)  The books would have been marketed toward girls, with a whole line of pink merchandise.

Because boy wizards are for everyone; girl witches are for girls.

(Interestingly, StoryNory has subverted this quite nicely.  You can listen to the original stories about Katie the Witch here.)

We could actually ask this question in a whole host of different ways, because the problem of the default is not limited to simply being male.  It’s also about being white, straight, neurotypical, able-bodied, and cisgender.  The moment a main character is not all of those things, it becomes all about being whatever else they might be.  (For example, if Harry had fallen in love with Dean or Neville instead of Ginny, it would have become a Coming Out story instead of a Defeating Voldemort story.)

The whole point of speculative fiction (which covers a pretty broad range–fantasy, science fiction, distopian, urban fantasy) is to leave our world and enter another.  Too often, those stories feature either a male main character or a character for whom their not-maleness (or not-straightness or not-whiteness or not-able-bodiedness or not cis-ness or whatever) becomes a key point in the plot.  You could have a story about a kid from the 25th century who travels back in time with a laser sword and a trusty sidekick to battle pirates in the 18th century.  Make the kid a girl and suddenly it’s all about how she has to “prove” herself among men or how she’s “atypical” in her culture for wanting to battle pirates.  You can swap out the girl for pretty much anyone who isn’t a white, straight, cis dude and the same thing happens.

That is not to say that there shouldn’t be anything different between the laser sword-wielding boy and the laser sword-wielding girl.  I’m not advocating for some unknown ideal of gender-neutrality.  I’m just explaining that when it comes to what’s on the book shelves, anyone who isn’t in the Approved Default Category gets a specially roped off section devoted to People Like That–which means that the story is often about dealing with both pirates and being a girl (or whatever) instead of just being about Saving the World From Pirates.

So what the heck do we do with that?  Let me give some completely unsolicited advice.

For writers:

  1. Be conscious of what you’re doing.  If you write a character that is Not You, please don’t make it all about how that person is Not You.  It might help to actually talk to (or better yet be friends with) people who are Not You so that you know what people might appreciate.  For example, I am done with princesses who rebel against expectations in order to go battle dragons.
  2. Discussing cultural norms works fine in historical/realistic fiction (when done well, mind you), but it doesn’t work well in fantasy.  Part of the appeal of speculative fiction is that these issues can be addressed sideways (as in Harry Potter with pureblood supremacy).  A girl dealing with sexism in her school election when she’s supposed to be dealing with sexism is great; a girl dealing with sexism on an alien planet when she’s supposed to be Saving the World is not.
  3. Be mindful of tropes.  Not all of them are bad, but racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and transphobic tropes are NOT EVER OKAY.
  4. Don’t make assumptions about what people will or won’t read.  Boys do, in fact, want to read about girls.  Not just adventuresome girls, either; boys do not naturally come with a setting that says, “Girls are boring.”  You can have an entire book that has mostly girls in it and guess what?  Boys will still read it!  Amazing, that.
  5. Stop limiting girls in “realistic” fiction to domesticity and relational drama.  Sometimes, girls have to deal with the death of a parent or a move to a new city or nerves about being the trombone soloist in the band concert–oddly, much like boys do.
  6. Same thing goes for any other characters that are not white, straight, cis boys.  It’s true that there are experiences unique to people who haven’t been considered the default, so those issues may come up in realistic fiction as things characters have to deal with.  But this can be done in a way that every kid can understand.  A good example of this is James Howe’s The Misfits and its companion books.  The kids in the books are dealing with things specific to them, but it’s done in the context of bullying–which makes it relatable regardless of the particulars.
  7. Most importantly, tell the story you have to tell.  Don’t stress about making your story an issues story, just make it a good story.

For readers (especially parents giving books to their kids):

  1. Don’t limit yourself.  If you can’t find the book at Barnes & Noble in-store, then look online.  Ask friends to recommend books.  Check with a librarian at your local branch.  There’s more than what’s on those store shelves.
  2. Make sure you give both boys and girls a wide variety from which to choose.  Read the back cover and the first chapter before handing something to your child–don’t just look at the cover and make assumptions.
  3. If you have a boy, don’t pass up books about girls because you think he won’t be interested.  The American Girl stories are really good (stupid, expensive product line aside).  The stories are not about “girlhood”; they are about friendship and family and kids experiencing changes in their lives, all within a historical context.
  4. A great way to find books for your child is to check out lexile.com.  If you know your child’s actual lexile, you can find books based on that.  If not, take a look at the last thing your child read.  Type the title into the search engine and you’ll come up with a lexile number for it.  If your child says that book is what my own son calls a “just right” read, you can enter the lexile number into the search to find similarly leveled books.  You can search by genre as well, including non-fiction.
  5. When you read, set the example by reading a broad range of books.  Interestingly, in the “new fiction” section of B&N, I found a completely different story from the kids’ section.  There were books by and about both men and women in approximately equal numbers.  The stories were varied–memoir, action, drama, romance, horror, mystery.  Take a chance on a new author!

Finally, I want to briefly touch on how this relates in particular to people of faith.  As a Christian, I take it seriously when the Bible says that in Christ there is no male or female.  For me that means that I need to work toward ending the injustice toward women, including the view that men are the default.  It’s important to me that my kids grow up knowing that real freedom, spiritually speaking, means being true to themselves and having the expectation that others will do likewise.  My daughter should not grow up believing the only thing God made special about her is that she’s a girl; my son should not grow up thinking that God put the burden of being the measuring stick upon him because he’s a boy.

Thanks for coming along for the ride this week, everyone.  Happy reading and writing–now go, change the world!

Barnes & Noble, Harry Potter, and the Smurfette Principle: Part 2

Posted by Amy in Books, Feminism and tagged with , , , ,

Do you know how hard it is to find a picture of Hermione that’s not just Emma Watson posing for a shoot? I rather like this one, though.

Today’s post is a continuation of yesterday’s discussion.  If you didn’t read it, you may want to catch up.  I also recommend you read the links so we’re all on the same page.

I promised that I would explain further about the Smurfette Principle/Girls Are Special and how those tropes relate to Harry Potter, so let’s dive right in.  I admit to being reluctant; I loved Harry before the books were cool.  I first spotted Sorcerer’s Stone in Barnes & Noble (yeah, I know) and thought, That looks like an interesting book.  I bought a copy.  By that time, the second one had just come out, so I bought that one, too.  I was hooked.  So keep in mind that this is coming from a place of deep love.

The reason I’m bringing up the books in this conversation is that I think they’re a good way to analyze the problem from both sides.  Many books (as readers pointed out in the comments on yesterday’s post) have lone female characters, and it’s easy to tell that they’re Smurfettes or Special for Being Girls.  When there are no other girls or women (or they’re the Big Bad), the story automatically fails Bechdel.  Princess stories tend to fall into this category, for example.  But in the Harryverse, it’s not quite so obvious.  After all, there are lots of women and girls–but only one girl who is central to the plot.

So let’s talk about Hermione.  Don’t misunderstand–I love her.  I probably love her for the same reasons that she embodies several tropes (and really, who wasn’t cheering for her when she slapped Malfoy?).  But that’s important to acknowledge, because there’s a fine line between wanting all girls/women to fit into those categories and appreciating one who just happens to do so.

On the surface, it appears that Hermione is a pretty good example of a Smurfette.  After all, isn’t she the lone girl having adventures alongside the boys?  The other girls and women seem one-dimensional.  Aren’t Lavender and Parvati just there to be pretty and flirtatious?  And isn’t Ginny’s claim to fame that she’s Harry’s love interest?  And isn’t Molly Weasley a stereotype of a stay-at-home mom (particularly of the religious sort), while Narcissa Malfoy is the picture of a trophy wife?

When one digs deeper, however, it’s obvious that this isn’t strictly true.  In fact, the entire Harryverse is populated with some pretty amazing girls and women.  They’re a diverse crew.  Not all of them are nice, of course (and Bellatrix Lestrange is definitely an evil version of a Smurfette).  Even so, they are there in vibrant colors–girls who are smart, fiesty, brave, caring, and a bit kooky.  Even girls who seem shallow and uninteresting can sometimes turn out to be among the bravest.

The problem isn’t the girls in the Harry Potter books (though we could make a good case for the movies largely erasing most of them; there’s a big surprise).  Where I notice it more is in the books that imitate the style.  When it’s done improperly, all we find are stories driven by the adventures of boys and their one girl companion.

That makes me sad.

I think that a huge part of what leads to the belief that Women Are Special is the very thing that Hermione and Ginny and Luna and, yes, Lavender (and even bitchy Pansy) subvert.  If men are the default, then everything about me–what I do, what I think, what I write–must automatically be in relation to men (or at minimum my identity as “not a man”).  Girls in books exist either as lone beacons or as accessories for boys–even when hunting dragons.  It would never occur to a girl to go on an adventure unless she was being rebellious against her femininity or she was helping a boy to win against the bad guys.  Therefore, we would never see more than one of these mysterious creatures adventuring with her own kind.

But Harry’s friends aren’t like that.

Warning: Spoilers.  Don’t read this if you haven’t read all 7 books but plan to and want to be surprised.

Although in the last book Harry, Ron, and Hermione go off on their own, she is typically not without help from other girls and/or women.  This is particularly evident when Harry’s friends insist on accompanying him to the Department of Mysteries in the fifth book.  His reason for not wanting them there isn’t because he’s afraid the girls are too weak and might get hurt; he wants to go alone so no one else gets into trouble.

When it comes down to the end of the last book, they all show up–every last one of the diverse crew of women and girls, including characters who hadn’t been seen in some time.  No one tells them that they should take care of the wounded while the men-folk do the real fighting.  No one asks them to defend their presence by making them show their Plucky Tomboy Princess credentials or assessing their motivation (is it a rebellion against gender stereotypes? is it to save the boys they love? is it to prove they’re as tough as any man?).  They do what they need to do, and no one asks them why–it’s assumed that everyone is sharing a common why.

Motivation for heroic or selfless acts doesn’t have gender.  A woman can write about these themes, and her characters can embody them, because they are universal–not because they belong to men and women are finally claiming them.

Tomorrow, I’m wrapping up the series with a discussion of how that affects what writers do and how we can avoid boxing girls in with narrow gender stereotypes and sexist tropes–and why it matters (including in regard to faith; you knew I’d get to that, right?).  I hope you’ll stick around.

Barnes & Noble, Harry Potter, and the Smurfette Principle: Part 1

Posted by Amy in Books, Feminism and tagged with , , , ,

Note: I’m going to ask that before you leave a comment, please read all the links in this post.  Otherwise, I will have to spend my time explaining things to you that you could easily read for yourself.  Thanks!

On Sunday, I was out with my family enjoying some much-needed time together after a very busy weekend.  We took the kids to Barnes & Noble, followed by dinner out.  A good time was had by all, and I was reminded again just why I adore my husband so much.  How many women can say to their husbands, “My inner Feminist Meter was pinging” and have their husbands nod in agreement?  While we enjoyed our ice cream, I told him I would explain after the kids were in bed what disturbed me while browsing the kids’ section with my daughter.  The good news is that later that night, I got about six words in when my husband’s eyes widened and he was shaking his head–he knew exactly what I meant.

Before I begin, I should define a term for those who may not be familiar.  A trope is a device or convention commonly used or expected in media (particularly storytelling).  You can read more about them here.  Fair warning, though: That web site is highly addictive and you will likely find yourself falling quickly down the rabbit hole.

Back to my story.  While at Barnes & Noble, I decided to have a look around for books that might be interesting to my kids.  I am aware of lots of wonderful books for their ages, many of which we own.  But we’re in a unique situation where we have two children who can read above grade level; that means that books for their ages are often uninteresting because they’re too easy.  So I’m always on the lookout for good stuff.  I figured this would be as good a time as any to see what was on the shelves.

That was a mistake.

I should learn to just walk away.  But since I am slightly obsessive about these things, I just haven’t been able to do it yet.  Once I started, I couldn’t stop.  By the time we left the store, I had moved past Mildly Annoyed and into I Need to Blog This territory.

Last week, several of my favorite bloggers posted about how most men tend to read books by men, while women often read a more equal mix of books by men and by women.  I wasn’t sure what to write; it seemed like it had already been said.  That is, until I browsed the shelves and realized that it’s actually part of a larger problem.  I don’t think that the author’s gender is the only important factor–it’s also the characters in the books.

What I discovered was that the vast majority of books available in-store feature boys as main characters.  This is true regardless of the author or the content.  Books aimed at boys feature boys; books aimed at girls feature girls.  That’s to be expected, and not all of that is bad.  I mean, not that I wouldn’t let my son read Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret, but he won’t ever be able to relate to menstruation.  What I didn’t appreciate was that most books aimed at a “universal” audience also feature boys.

This is a particular trope known as Men Are Generic, Women Are Special.  In other words, something everyone can/should enjoy must feature boys/men as the main characters.  Girls end up as sidekicks, girlfriends, casualties, or all three.  There are a host of other tropes that usually accompany this theme–for example, there is often only one girl among the group, and she is seen as “not particularly girly.”  She might be unattractive in some way, or she might be intelligent but weak, or she might be a tomboy stereotype.  Sometimes, the girl of the group has very little personality–her uniqueness is related to being a girl (the Smurfette Principle).

Quite a lot of popular films and books fall into this unfortunate trap.  And really, it wouldn’t be a big deal if only some of what we read have these tropes.  When I browsed the shelves, though, I saw a disproportionate number of books with the same theme–boys are the “leaders” who drive the story, even when the audience is supposed to be universal.  Books featuring girls were nearly all (with a few notable exceptions) about girls doing domestic tasks and/or grappling with “relationship” issues.  An uncomfortable number of “girl” books don’t pass the Bechdel Test, despite having multiple girl characters (i. e. the plot is driven by a fight over a boy).

When I mentioned this on Twitter, I was accused of creating a “conspiracy theory” and informed that this is a problem with “marketing” not availability.  I agree that the problem is with the marketing; I never said it wasn’t.  I was expressly condemning Barnes & Noble for its poor choice in what to stock.  At no point did I say there aren’t enough women writing books or there aren’t enough books featuring girls.  There are!  There are lots and lots of wonderful books by women and men alike that feature girls.  Our public library contains many of them, and friends have recommended others.  If I want to buy the books, I can find them in all sorts of places.  That’s not my complaint!

My complaint is specifically about what’s marketed, what’s available on-shelf when one browses the book store.  Because the message being sent by this–or at least, what marketing believes to be true–is that girls don’t have universal appeal, but boys do.  The perception is that Harry Potter is the pinnacle of storytelling for youth because of the appeal of Harry, not the broad themes of the story.  (There were at least half a dozen Potter knock-off series on the shelves.)  Sadly, the Harryverse fits neatly into that belief system.  I want to unpack that a bit more, but I’ll save it for tomorrow.

The problem I have with the book store is the same one I have with toy stores and visual media: It’s split into boy things and girl things, with boy things the acceptable default.  The sexism is evident in what and how things are advertised, not necessarily what’s being created (though there are exceptions).  This is the thing that needs to change.  And if stores like Barnes & Noble won’t change what they put on their shelves, then we need to stop looking there for new material.

Tomorrow, I will expand on how Harry fits into this and why that series is potentially not a problem while the imitations potentially are.  Stick around this week to find out more (including what we can do about it).

Keep your hands where I can see ‘em

Posted by Amy in Odds 'n' Ends, Women and tagged with , ,

By Richard Ling from NSW, Australia (Eastern Blue Groper) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Groper. Oh, wait. Not that kind.

The other night, I went out to a bar.

I’m not a big fan of bars.  They’re typically noisy, crowded, and full of drunk people–pretty much all things I prefer to avoid.  But my sister’s friend has a couple of sons who play in a band, and my sister’s been telling me how good they are for some time. Every time they were on, however, it seemed to coincide with my orchestra concerts.  The season is over now, so I agreed to a night out with my sister and her friend’s family.

She wasn’t wrong–the band was good.  Not my typical music choice, but I recognized most of the songs they covered (they play 70s and 80s hard rock).  I did have to giggle at one point when my sister said, “Doesn’t this song bring back memories?”  I was about six at the time the song was new, so not really.  Still, it was a good time.

Until Mr. Gropey showed up.

Now, I have to say, I’d had my eye on him for a while.  He already seemed like the creeper type, so I wasn’t unprepared.  And in this case, having a crowd helped; out of necessity, I was maintaining my seat at our table just so I could have breathing room–there was no way for me to be cornered anywhere.  He sidled up to me and whispered, “Having a good time?”  How he missed the glaringly obvious wedding band, I will never know.  Maybe he just didn’t care.  After all, he looked to be in his late 40s or early 50s, and he’d had no problem hitting on the 21-year-old at our table.  Regardless, my response was something fairly non-committal like, “Uh-huh” while simultaneously avoiding eye contact.

He didn’t take the hint.  He snaked his arm around me and put his hand on my waist just above my tailbone.  Fortunately, I was seated on a bar stool, so he couldn’t grab anything lower (not that he wasn’t making a valiant effort).  I’m quick.  I stuck my elbow in his ribs and flipped him off.  He backed away, but not before trying to engage my sister–as though she hadn’t just witnessed all his behavior for herself and would look twice at him.

Now, I’m not telling this story to get sympathy or to ratchet up some kind of Angry Feminist cred.  I’m telling the story because I think it’s important to talk about these things, particularly among Christians.  No doubt some of those who read this are going to make assumptions about me or my clothes, or they will judge me for setting foot in a “seedy” environment.  They might assume I was under the influence of alcohol.  Didn’t I know what I was getting myself into?  This is the message that is sent by the Modesty Police.

There was a time when I would indeed have felt guilty for being in a bar and for dressing nicely.  I would have felt as though I had encouraged his behavior somehow or that I deserved it.  Hell, I probably would have felt guilty just for listening to the kind of music the band was playing.  Not anymore.  I know that I have the right to be where I want to be and feel safe.  I’m not eternally damned for my choice in music or clothes, and I wasn’t the one in the wrong when a creepy guy tried to cop a feel.

In the twenty-plus years I’ve spent in churches, the vast majority of the time I’ve heard more about how I’m supposed to behave as a woman with regard to my body than just about any other topic.  Church leadership frequently set themselves up as Sexuality Hall Monitors, and comments about modesty, sex, availability, femininity, submission, and what we do with our reproductive parts abound.  Those things permeate nearly every discussion, even when they seem irrelevant.

In all the time I’ve been in churches, I never once heard any pastor or leader give a sermon on how men should keep their hands to themselves.  Not one.

Is it any wonder, then, that people don’t come forward more often with stories of how we’ve been publicly groped?  We desperately need people to stand up and tell their stories when these things happen, because we need to create safe space–especially in our churches–where everyone understands and agrees that it’s wrong no matter what.  People get away with pervy behavior because they know a lot of men and women will keep silent about it.  It’s not just Christian culture that blames the victim–it’s our society in general.  If we call ourselves Christians and claim to be counter to culture, then we need to be the ones to stand up against that kind of thing.

And lest anyone think I’m forgetting about men, I’m not.  There were some pretty creepy women at that bar, too.  The big difference is that women are usually blamed in both cases–we caused men to put their hands on us, and it’s obviously (and rightly so) a woman’s fault if she grabs a guy’s ass in a bar.  But I get the sense that while men are rarely held responsible for “leading her on,” they are supposed to be flattered by the attention and are not supposed to feel violated by it.  (I really can’t speak to what happens if men do this to other men or women to other women; in my previous churches, I doubt that would have been addressed at all, which is pretty telling.)

I don’t feel like anything that happened was terrible or tragic.  It was gross, and I was offended, but it wasn’t the worst thing I’ve experienced.  My point is that it was still wrong, and we need Christians to stop fixating on what people are doing consensually with their genitals and start addressing what’s being done against people’s wishes.

Because of my natural personality and my own life experiences, I feel pretty fortunate that I can look back on this and have a good laugh at Mr. Gropey’s expense.  The next morning, my husband and I were in church and the title of one of the songs listed was in German.  He suggested that if someone gets fresh with me again, I should just shout at him in German–that’s sure to scare him off.  Then he got a wicked gleam in his eye and said, “Or you could just play sweet church lady.”  I knew exactly what he meant.  I told him that next time, I’m just going to ask the guy if he knows Jesus as his personal savior.

Maybe I’ll earn some Jesus points and lead someone to the Lord; who knows?*

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Just in case you missed the sarcasm, I’m not really advocating for this as a way to get away from a perv, and I don’t really care to waste my time “witnessing” to a creeper in a bar.

What our boys learn

Posted by Amy in Feminism, Gender Roles, Sexuality, Women and tagged with , , ,

Yesterday, Emily Wierenga apologized.  I’m glad, because she owed it to those who were hurt by her original post about relationships and submission.  There were several reasons why I didn’t respond to the first post.  First, I was late to the game.  I’d been on vacation when it appeared, so I missed it–all I saw was the fallout.  Second, plenty of others had already written what needed to be said.  Third, I already didn’t care much for her theology or her title of “Everyday Radical” (she’s not particularly radical); I really couldn’t figure out why everyone was so surprised by her words.

I don’t want to go around and around about the original post.  I will say that no matter how “heartfelt” or sincere-sounding her apology, she still has problematic theology that she refuses to acknowledge.  I’m glad she understands how hurtful her words were, but she also needs to examine her beliefs a lot more closely.  Her original post was addressed to people like me–Christian feminists.  It was not a rallying cry for people who share her views but something written to those of us she feels are outside that theology.  Therefore, I see no need to extend some kind of olive branch in her direction.  I don’t stand with Emily or people who share her beliefs, despite the fact that we may all call ourselves Christians.  As a woman, as a feminist, and as a Christian, I have a responsibility to address things that contribute to the way women are seen in the church.  That includes speaking out against the patriarchal leanings of other writers–whether those people are men or women.  The fact that we both have vaginas in no way obligates me to some kind of womanly solidarity.

When I saw that Emily was offering an apology, I was glad; I believed she was doing the right thing–until I read a couple of paragraphs down.  These words made my blood boil:

I didn’t know the way I would cry at night for fear of sending my boys to school, for all of the school shootings and drugs but not only that: for the way they wouldn’t be taught how to be strong leaders, but rather, would be questioned about their gender, made guilty for the way their kind had treated women in the past, and told that they could be attracted to either males or females because there was no male or female: there just was.

I’m not going to waste time on the rest of her apology; it wasn’t bad, though I think she still needs to consider the implications of her original post beyond its triggering effect.  No, I want to address what I quoted above.  I am the mother of a nine-year-old boy who attends public school; there has never once been a time when I have been afraid that he would be taught any of those things Emily mentions:

1. They wouldn’t be taught how to be strong leaders

First of all, that’s not the job of the school.  The job of the school is to teach our children how to read and write and do sums.  If we want any of our children–sons or daughters–to be “strong leaders,” then we must take responsibility as their parents.  Not only that, this desire to have (in particular boys) become strong leaders ignores the fact that not everyone has a personality suited to “leadership” (at least, not the way it’s defined in conservative evangelical circles).  As for what I think Emily might actually mean–that boys need to learn to be strong leaders so they can lead their wives–that is most definitely not something I want my son learning at school.  If that’s your religious belief, you’re welcome to it, but don’t impose it on my kid.

2. They . . . would be questioned about their gender

As far as I know, this is a made-up concern.  I have yet to meet a teacher or school employee who questions my child’s gender.  I’m not entirely sure how Emily means this, but if she means that girls are given unfair advantage because there’s a sudden backlash against boys, she needs a pretty serious reality check.  Boys are still more frequently called on in class, and boys are more often encouraged to explore math and science.  What gets questioned is when boys fail to live up to that expectation.

If Emily means that suddenly boys won’t be boys and girls won’t be girls, that’s also pretty ridiculous.  Is she assuming some mass takeover of our schools by an imaginary army of transgender people and their allies?  Or is she just lamenting that now it’s okay for boys to like pink and take ballet?  (I doubt she’s having the same questions about whether girls can climb trees and play with trucks.)

3. . . . made guilty for the way their kind had treated women in the past

My son hasn’t yet come home telling me that girls are good and boys are bad for hurting them.  Again, this is not a thing that happens in schools.  I just don’t understand where Emily’s deep fear of feminists is coming from.  We’re not staging protests on the high school campuses or storming the gates of district offices.  We’re not making impassioned pleas at school board meetings.  No one is telling our boys that “their kind” are heinous beasts that have perpetrated evil on womankind.  This smacks of feminist stereotypes.  What I hope my son is learning (and I believe he is, if his behavior is an indication) is that girls are equally intelligent, interesting, strong, brave, and fun.  Through his friendships with girls, my son is learning things that will eventually make him a better man.  The adults around him are encouraging this–and that’s a very good thing.

Also, let’s be clear on this: Men being assholes to women? Not so much a thing of the past.

4. . . . told that they could be attracted to either males or females

Damn skippy, though I doubt this happens at age nine.  I certainly hope that my son is aware that whatever sexual attractions he feels are normal.  I learned at church that sexual attraction was bad unless it was within marriage between a man and a woman.  Because I live in a conservative city, the most “sex ed” I got there was a very brief, embarrassed, “Um…uh…use some birth control so you don’t get a nebulous disease we’re not actually going to describe for you.  Now, watch this video of a woman giving birth so you’re too disgusted to get pregnant.”

Anyway, Emily is wrong about this one too–is she not aware that kids are still being bullied for their sexuality?  Even if schools are teaching an inclusive sex education (which they’re not in most places), the horror of having your kid know gay people exist is a lot less scary than being the gay kid who gets threatened or beaten.  Priorities, people.  Sort them.

5. . . . because there was no male or female: there just was.

This is also foolish.  No one teaches or believes this.  It’s fear-mongering.  I do not know any person–cis or trans–who believes or teaches this.  For the love of God, please go look things up before you start spouting off on them.

Oh, wait.  She probably means proper gender roles, not actual genders.  Er…I hope.  What she seems to possibly mean here (?)–though I honestly can’t tell; I’m still confused–is that it’s okay for men to be attracted to men or women to women because the lines between their roles have gotten too fuzzy.  I can’t decide which interpretation of Emily’s words is more offensive.  In either case, gross stereotypes are being perpetuated here.  Whatever Emily’s intent, it changes nothing.  There are no schools teaching these bizarre things about gender.

When I send my son to school, I worry that he might have forgotten his lunch money.  I worry that he might be bullied (or worse, engage in bullying behavior).  I wonder if his ADHD is making him struggle through his day or if he’s getting enough stretch breaks.  I think about whether he’s learning to work cooperatively with all kinds of people.  I hope fervently he doesn’t get hurt on the playground or in phys ed.  I think about ways to make getting his homework done a priority on nights he has ballet class.  I pray that today is not the day a troubled young man decides to show up at his school and shoot a classroom full of children.

I do not worry that he won’t grow up to be the right kind of man.

 

When friendship empowers us

Posted by Amy in Feminism, Women and tagged with , , ,

By Jules Morgan from Montreal, Canada (Cara's Ad Hoc delicious Uploaded by Fæ) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

I don’t know why asparagus symbolizes friendship; but this was the 5th image that came up when I typed “friendship” into Wikimedia Images. I liked it.

Sometimes, I feel like I have no fight left in me.  I forget why I write and why I speak up, because no matter how many of us have joined our voices, it’s hard to see progress.

But then I have a conversation or exchange comments online and I remember.  I know why I do this.  I see others doing what they can, what they know how to do, every day in their ordinary lives, and I remember.

Last night, I had a terrific exchange with a couple of people on my Facebook page.  Nothing earth-shattering, but it was cool.  I connected with one old friend and one new one, and we shared some thoughts.

The original post, which I shared via a fellow blogger, was a link to a Christianity Today article in response to the Steubenville rape case and the aftermath.  After a few comments from one friend, another jumped in and asked what I thought of the post I Am Not Your Wife, Sister or Daughter which was linked in the CT article.  (I agree, by the way.  I think it’s a weak argument that continues to perpetuate the idea that women are only someone in relation to a man.  I feel the same way when people use the “it could be your friend/relative/coworker” argument to “humanize” any group of people.)  I won’t bore you with the details of our conversation, but eventually, it sparked my new friend to post this question:

Thought experiment: There are two magic buttons. One makes all men see all women as persons. The other allows all women to see themselves as persons. (Person = full empowerment; full ownership of one’s own body, mind, and destiny.)

If you could press only one of the magic buttons, which would you press? Why?

Both my other friend and I (in a rare fit of solidarity; we often disagree with each other–but that’s one of the things I like about her) said we would choose the latter.  We disagree on why we would make that choice, but it struck me as important that two people who have vastly different approaches to addressing the ills of the world would be of one mind on this.

The next question, of course, was why we (feminists) don’t focus more on empowering women rather than changing the way men view us.  My friend said that what’s important to her is not to worry about educating those who won’t change their minds, to be a better person than those who came before her, and to pass that on to the next generation.

Those are admirable things, and I want to go on record saying that I am absolutely certain–whether she always feels it or not–that this friend is making a difference (even though she absolutely does not need my approval!).  We haven’t seen one another face-to-face in many years, but even when we were in college together she was making an impact.  She might not remember it, but she was a good friend (along with our whole group) at a time when I needed that.  So if nothing else, she affected me.  I have no doubt that she is having that effect on others, likely in ways she’s not aware of.  She is doing what is meaningful for her and being the person she wants to be.  That should never, ever be discounted as unworthy or unimportant.

Which brings me to why I do what I do.  I have a vastly different approach.  What’s key, though, is that my way of doing things is not better than anyone else’s.  Nor is it less worthy.  I choose to take on educating the ignorant because I believe that’s what perpetuates cycles of violence and hate.  It’s not the small number of perpetrators who allow it to continue–it’s the uneducated people who stand by and do nothing while violators do what they do.  It’s the people who sit around asking questions about why rape victims “allowed” themselves to be in that position.  It’s the average church-goers who say nothing when their pastors spew hate towards gay people.  It’s the ones who say, “I’m not racist, but…” followed by something that sounds remarkably racist.

In the end, people like my college friend give me the courage to do what I do because she has the courage to live it in her corner of the world.  It doesn’t matter that we work this out in different ways, because there are any number of approaches to making this world a better place.  Instead of being frustrated that all my friends aren’t activists, I’m choosing today to appreciate the beauty of our diversity.  And I’m choosing to celebrate and honor the women I know who have the courage to believe in themselves regardless of what anyone else says.

Thank you, friends, for an excellent discussion and the renewal I needed to go out another day and work against oppression.

The Destruction of Men

Posted by Amy in Feminism, Women and tagged with , , , , ,

By JTMontgomery (Created on MS Publisher.) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Equality/Egalitarian Symbol

I’m tired.

No, scratch that.  I’m exhausted.  I don’t mean physically; I mean I’m mentally drained to the point that more words won’t come.  I’ve run out of different ways to say the same things.  Yet here I am, giving it one more try.

Feminism is not “bad for men.”

Or perhaps it is, in the sense that it requires men to examine the ways in which they benefit from male privilege.  Perhaps it is bad for men who actively work to perpetuate the systems in place that tip the balance in their favor.  Perhaps it is bad for men who violently use and abuse women.

But it’s not bad for men in the sense that they must no longer be real men.

The reason for my weariness today is the numerous conversations on- and offline following last week’s Feminisms Fest blog link-up.  I think the reaction of non-participants (overwhelmingly cis men) can be summed up like so:

I’m tired of hearing about feminism.  Not all men are bad.

Yes, well, that’s true.  The thing is, though, even if you’re one of the good (not “good”) ones, unless you’re putting your voice out there already, you probably have some things to learn.

It’s not about the actions of one individual man that concern me.  It’s the societal structures in place that allow people to live in blissful ignorance of the hidden privileges of being a male-identified, male-bodied person.  Even some of the things that do hurt men are the direct result of patriarchy.  I’ve tried (sometimes patiently, sometimes not) to explain what it means to be privileged, but too often I’m met with, “Huh?”

This checklist of male privilege is fairly helpful.  There are some things that I think could use some clarification, but overall, it’s a nice summary.  It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing that according to the checklist, cisgender is also assumed; that’s a post for another day.  I also want to mention that a few of the items on the list would be harmful to men if they were reversed–another direct result of patriarchy.  For example:

  • A man would not be questioned about having a career and children, but he certainly would be questioned if he decided to stay home.
  • A man would not be expected to take his spouse’s name on marriage, but he would be questioned if he did.
  • The entirety of manhood would not be seen as a failure for one man’s failure in his career–but he might be seen as having failed at manhood.
  • A man who works for a woman might be viewed negatively if he wasn’t vying for her job–or even if he expressed his respect for her authority.
  • A boy who is quiet, introverted, or artistic is often viewed as unmasculine.
  • Boys may be judged on the kinds of toys they do or do not play with.
  • On the whole, a man doesn’t have to worry about the message his wardrobe sends–unless he doesn’t want to wear “typical” men’s clothing or colors.
  • A man who has been sexually harassed, raped, or victimized by an intimate partner may have more stigma and fewer resources for help based on the faulty idea that he should have “been a man” and prevented or stopped it.  He may not be able to seek asylum at a shelter due to distrust of men or disbelief that he was victimized.

Yes, men, this is hurting you, too.  But not in the ways you think it is.  Not because a woman who works in upper management is a “ball-buster” or wants to “be a man.”  Not because your notion of feminism is that it’s anti-man.  What’s hurting you is not feminism but the systems that feminism seeks to dismantle.

I think the mistake is that in some way, men recognize that the power is imbalanced, and there is an understandable fear that the tables will be turned.  It’s not so much about losing the privileged status (at least, not for the genuinely good guys); it’s about not wanting women to do to men what they’ve done to us for centuries.  I can assure you that while there are probably a few women who would like that, the overwhelming majority of us just want equity.

That’s all.  Just all people, equal in all things.  Equal pay.  Equal choices for our lives.  Freedom from fear.  Freedom of gender expression and sexual expression.  Opportunities for all people in all areas of work and life.  Justice for everyone, regardless of who we are, how we identify, or what we look like.  It’s actually pretty simple.

The ways to accomplish it are simple, too.  Take a look at the checklist again.  What things on there can you change in how you interact with your spouse and children?  Your parents and siblings?  Your employers and employees?  Yourself?

If you think about it, it’s not hard to see why we still need feminism–even for men.

Notable News: Week of February 23-March 1, 2013

Posted by Amy in Blogs, Cool Stuff, Faith, Feminism, Links, Women and tagged with , ,

What a great week it’s been.  I have been honored and thrilled to participate in the feminisms link-up and be included with some of my favorite bloggers.  Today I’m highlighting the best of what I’ve seen this week.

1. On the Body and Blood

There’s a lot of my spiritual past I still have to sort through, even as it relates to women in the Church. It’s not all so tidy, but it does mean that when I approached the rail for the first time to receive the Eucharist, it was the most unconsciously natural thing for there to be a woman with the Body and Blood in her hands, just as a woman held the Body and Blood two thousand years ago.  ["feminism & me, whether i knew it or not," Antonia Terrazas]

2. On (literal) bra-burning

Those scraps of fabric finally started burning well, the polyester fibers casting out light and all of our bold pronouncements at the injustice of the world. We stared for a brief moment at our success.

The flames blossomed.

“Oh my gosh!” someone shrieked. “THE TRASH CAN IS ON FIRE!”  ["The Fires of Feminism," Emily Maynard]

3. On not being half

I was angriest that day because a boy had said out loud what I’m always afraid men are thinking.

That, as a woman in the church, I am by very nature a HALF.

Half a heart. Half a body. Half a purpose.  ["today i embark on an expedition to take back my personhood," Jesus Gypsy]

4. On needing femimism

This is how I feel. When someone asks me why I believe inequality exists, I want to scream, “Why do I believe you exist? You’re standing right in front of me!”

So actually, Christian church, you need feminism like the dying need a tourniquet. But I need your attitude like a fish needs a bicycle.  ["What I Learned: Like a fish needs a bicycle," Emily Joy Allison]

5. On being a feminist for our sons, too

I’m a feminist because I want my son to see all people as valuable human beings, created in God’s image. I want him to reject culturally constructed ideas about what it means to be “masculine” or “feminine” and to embrace biblical truth about what it means to be human, male and female, created in teh image of a loving God.  ["for my son," Amy at Making All Things New]

6. On the control of women’s bodies

everything about my mother’s experience tells me a story about someone else deciding what women should do with their bodies. It tells me about dangerous assumptions and naive women and sickness being passed from one generation to the next, daughters without mothers and mothers without daughters.  ["FemFest : My Daughter’s Body," Bethany Suckrow]

7. On love and justice

But I agree with hooks that there can be no love without justice. Where unfairness, inequality, abuse, disrespect, victim-blaming, and rape exist, there is no love.

And feminism is one movement that fights for justice for women.  ["Feminisms Fest: I need feminism because there is no love without justice," Sarah Moon]

8. On taking ownership of misogyny and healing the hidden wound

We hear sermons telling women their only place in this world is the home. We buy toys that are deliberately designated for either boys or girls. We see movies that portray women as one-dimensional manic pixie dream girls who’s only mission in life is to rescue “sensitive” moody guys from their self pity.  ["FemFest: The Other Hidden Wound," Travis Mamone]

9. On speaking blessings over the feminist women and men of faith

So, I’m bending the rules a little bit. Next week I’ll probably do my own wrap-up, as well as a list of contributions that I thought were particularly helpful or well-done. In the meantime, I’m going to write something that’s on my heart: I want to speak a blessing over everyone who has participated this week. ["People of Valor," Shaney Irene]

10. On places where you can read more