Tag Archives: women

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.

Notable News: Week of November 3-9, 2012

Posted by Amy in Cool Stuff, Links, News, Odds 'n' Ends, Writing and tagged with , , , , ,

What a week!  This time last week, I was just starting my NaNoWriMo novel; I’m now over 13,000 words in.  I also discovered possibly the only two people in my social circles who had no idea that I support LGBT rights.  Who knew there was anyone still left?  In much more interesting news, this week saw some good writing around the Web.

1. Women set the election on fire

Dianna Anderson nicely sums up the great news for women.  We rocked the vote!  Among other things, women are at a record high in the U.S. Senate at 19.  I told my daughter that since we make up half the population, I would love to see half of the people representing us be women.  I hope that happens in her lifetime.

2. On no longer identifying as pro-life

Libby Anne, over at Love, Joy, Feminism,  has written a post on her move from being firmly in the pro-life camp to having a very different view today.  She sums up nicely exactly what I think about the subject.  (Note: Please do not debate Libby Anne’s words here on my blog; go to her page and interact with her.  I can’t speak for another person.  If you want to talk about abortion here, it had better be respectful.  I’m not going to tolerate shouting about how “wrong” anyone else is, calling people baby-killers, or demanding that anyone—myself included—change our views.)

3. Another perspective on unintended pregnancy

I understand why many people (particularly progressives) may not agree, but Thea Ramirez writes a compelling post about making adoption a more viable choice.  I have seen some of the challenges that face people seeking adoption, and I agree that change is needed.  There is certainly more room for honest discussion on the matter.

4. Writing is hard!

Stephanie Brooks understands the internal dialogue of many writers.  Here, she offers some practical solutions for the frustration many of us have when we perceive our writing to have fallen short.  I know that point number one, about failure to give ourselves time to write, is true for me.  It’s tough to balance my own goals and the needs of my family, which ultimately leads to unproductive days and writing that is definitely sub-par.

Join me next week for more juicy talk about Fifty Shades of Bad Writing and a brand-new series about the issues raised in A Year of Biblical Womanhood.  I hope you all have bought your copies so that we can grab a hot drink, a blanket, and settle in for some woman-to-woman chats.  Over the weekend, I hope to get in at least another 4,000 words on that NaNo Novel.  What are your plans?

Being the Girl

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

I’m continuing my countdown to the official launch of A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans.  (I know; I’m like a kid at Christmas.  I’ve been looking forward to this book ever since I first read about it.)  Since I can’t offer a full review (having yet to finish the book), I will sustain you with other topics related to womanhood (Biblical or otherwise) until then.  Today: Our obsession with gender roles.

Have you ever experienced that awkward moment when someone asks, “So, are you the girl in your relationship”?  Yeah, me neither.  See, that’s because for most of us heterosexual cis-women, that question doesn’t even make sense.  Well, okay, I think I’d rather be thought of as a woman than as a girl, since I’m an adult.  But otherwise, I can’t think of a single time when I’ve been asked such a stupid question.

On the other hand, I can think of plenty of times when people have thought it was appropriate to ask me that question about my friends.

I’m not kidding.  I have a disproportionate number of non-het and non-cis friends for someone of my religious background.  For whatever reason, on more than one occasion and regarding more than one friend or family member, I have been asked which of my friends represented “the girl” in their relationships.  This usually happens after I’ve introduced them to someone, say, at a party.

What the heck is the obsession with figuring out what presumed gender roles a couple takes on?  I mean, when I’m with my friends and family, I don’t waste my precious minutes with them contemplating a) what their “roles” are in their relationship or b) whether or not they even have them.  I’m actually not sure why I should care.  Even back in my pre-ally days I never considered that sort of thing.

What surprises me even more is that it’s often people who don’t seem themselves to conform to strict gender-based societal norms who ask such nosy/inappropriate questions.  One of my less Hollywood-style-feminine friends suggested that her lesbian friend’s preferences for dresses must mean that she’s the “girl” in her relationship with her partner.  Resisting the temptation to ask whether this friend’s husband is the “girl” in their relationship, I politely suggested that I didn’t think that was the way it worked—both of them are women, not girls, and they are not role-playing at 1950s husband and wife.

It occurs to me that this is part of what bothers so many people about anything that isn’t heterosexual or cis.  I think it might be at the root of why so many strong women are often referred to as “bitchy,” “shrill,” or “emotional.”  Those are all things that challenge our long-established notions about what it means to be women.  Sometimes, we feel we have to know who’s the girl because we want to revert to something we can understand, something familiar.

How about we make some effort to become more comfortable with the unfamiliar?  I appreciate my friends who fail to conform to anyone else’s idea of what they ought to be or do.  It makes me feel far less of a failure at being a “real” woman when I see that non-conforming women are successful, happy, and fulfilled in who they are.  One day, we can let go of the notion that there are only two ways of being—”boy” or “girl”—and accept that there’s a whole lot more variety than that, even among those of us who consider ourselves entirely straight and cis.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Be sure to check out the essay contest here on the blog, and don’t forget to order your copy of A Year of Biblical Womanhood!

Notable News: Week of September 29-October 5, 2012

Posted by Amy in Blogs, Cool Stuff, Doctrine, Faith, Gender Roles, LGBT Issues, Links, Music, News, Women and tagged with , , , ,

Lots of around-the-web goodness for you all today.  This week’s best posts are all over the map for content.  Enjoy!

1. Roger E. Olson on “Evangelical Inquisitions”

This timely post is spot-on about the way that some Christians like to play Doctrine Police with other Christians.  At our house, we call it doctrinal purity.  It’s the idea that there is one absolutely correct way to interpret Scripture and if you don’t do it that way, you are in error and must be disciplined.  I have to admit, I’m not fond of the term “evangelical” in this context.  This is not necessarily a hallmark of evangelicalism, only of extreme conservativism.  There are plenty of wonderful evangelicals who hold Scripture in high regard but don’t adhere to a strictly conservative reading.  Rachel Held Evans, Brian McLaren, and Mel White come to mind, for example.

Which brings me to…

2. Denny Burke is an idiot

Or at least he isn’t very kind to Christianity Today’s article on women to watch.  Instead of appreciating the diversity of women on the list, he goes off on how CT didn’t do enough to highlight the differences in belief about women’s roles.  Well, of course, Burke, you fool.  The point of the CT article was to honor Christian women and what they’re doing, not point out their doctrinal error (see above).  I don’t normally read the comments, but the first comment says, “Rachel Held Evans — what do you mean, ‘non-evangelical’?”  This got my attention, so I read on—only to discover a long, long discussion about whether Rachel Held Evans is or is not evangelical.  Because that’s the real point, of course.

And speaking of women…

3. Slacktivist shreds Kent Shaffer

Oh, Slacktivist.  You are so many, many kinds of awesome.  This post quotes Shaffer’s disgusting response to Christian women bloggers and links every single word to a blog written by a woman.  And in case you missed my mad tweeting about it, I’m on that list too!  (It’s in the last set of links, the final word “always.”)  I am honored to be counted among the likes of Alise Write, Andrea Cumbo, Grace, Kimberly Knight, Crystal St. Marie Lewis, and others.  Many thanks to my cousin for pointing this out to me, I would have missed it otherwise.  (And double points for this being posted on my birthday!)

4. If only

If only this were a sign that Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill were moving into the 21st century.  I agree with this woman’s points, but I doubt that her actual presentation at Mars Hill will be anything outside of the narrowly defined roles that church expects from women.  Still, nice to see another woman who doesn’t like women’s conferences.

5. On juggling

Shannon M. Howell says it nicely.  We all have a lot of plates to keep in the air.  If anyone figures it out, please email me.  I’ll get to your message sometime next month.

6. Boy Scouts of America are idiots too

And right here, folks, is exactly why my son is not a boy scout.  (Not that he is or isn’t gay, but I won’t give my money to an organization that actively discriminates against people who are non-het and non-religious.)  Keeping a hard-working kid from being awarded his Eagle Scout is just not cool, I don’t care what your policies are.  Seriously, BSA? Get a new hobby.  Also, if your kid is a scout, sorry, but I’m not buying your popcorn.

7. Jonathan Zeng: heartache and hope

This piece is beautifully written.  It breaks my heart that there is still such discrimination against people for who they are.  At the same time, Zeng captures the spirit of creativity and working out our pain.  I am reminded again of the importance of standing alongside people in the midst of trials.  I hope that we are teaching our children to do the same.

I hope you all have a great weekend, see you Monday for the next installment of 50 Shades!

Notable News: Week of September 22-28, 2012

Posted by Amy in Cool Stuff, Links, News and tagged with , , , , ,

Not so awesome this week in terms of progress towards women’s equality.  We make up half the population, so why aren’t we making up half the featured blogs and authors lists?  More classic examples of “Men are universal, women are specific.”  Also, a just-for-fun article from the BBC news magazine (hey, I can’t just depress you all, for heaven’s sake!).

1. The title says it all

Insert major eye roll here.  This article, Jeffrey Eugenides: I don’t know why Jodi Picoult is bellyaching, is an exercise in stupidity.  It starts off just fine, a discussion of Eugenides’ work and his latest novel.  Read it if you like; it’s long and not terribly interesting.  About two-thirds of the way through, it turns into a random bashing of Jodi Picoult and a bizarre conversation about the way works by men and women are received.  To refer to Picoult as “bellyaching” reminds me a lot of the way women who rise up against our inequality are usually branded as “shrill,” “bitchy,” or “whiny.”  Eugenides says that Picoult isn’t “starved for attention,” as though that’s what she was after in her criticism of review coverage of women.  Good going, guys.  You just proved her point.

2. Gender bias and Facebook

Oh, goody.  So it’s not okay to be a racist, but it is okay to be a misogynist?  Well, gee.  Hey, women? I think we need to fight harder against this kind of thing.  Slut-shaming? Not cool.  Using pictures of strangers without their permission? Not cool.  Facebook pages about punching women? Not cool.  And again…we make up half the population.  How is it that we haven’t stopped this shit yet?  Let’s get busy making sure that it gets taken down.

3. Keep digging, Kent Shaffer

Last week I was critical of Dianna Anderson’s post about privilege.  This week, I am once again in her debt for voicing exactly what needed to be said in exactly the right way.  She offers two posts in response to Kent Shaffer’s Open Letter to Women Blogs, which you can read here and here.  Shaffer seems to think that there aren’t enough popular “church” blogs written by women to make up—again with the 50% thing—half the list of top blogs.  Of course, the definition of “church” blog is pretty nebulous, and, as is typical, the idea is still that men are—you got it—universal, while women are special.  And of course, we who make up 5o freakin’ percent of the population are eager to read only blogs by white men.  Gah.

Finally, before I get too worked up about this, I offer you…

4. Britishisms in American casual speak

Apparently, we Americans are letting common British terms and phrases creep into our own speech.  While I think it’s fun to take note of the ways in which our language may be changing or blending, I think this particular article is kind of…crap.  For example, I’ve never considered the term “sell-by date” to be particularly British, especially since I’ve used it, oh, since my own childhood.  Friends who are from/have been to England assure me that the common term is “expiry date” (though if anyone has another experience, by all means, let me know).  Also, whoever wrote this seems blissfully unaware that there is indeed still some lingering prejudice here toward people we would call redheads (but are referred to as “gingers” across the pond).  According to the article, there’s been an “uptick” of people using the word “ginger,” possibly attributed to Harry Potter (again, someone can correct me here, but I don’t think the word appears in the American versions of the books).  Ah, well.  The article is still an interesting read, and it doesn’t change the fact that UK English has better slang than US English, as you can see here and here.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

That which makes us men (and women)

Posted by Amy in Gender and tagged with , ,

Wilhelm von Gloeden (1856-1931), Sicilian dress (a boy disguised as a girl). Taormina, circa 1895.

Over the weekend, I read two blog posts, both of which contained phrases that made me cringe a little.  Overall, I liked the posts.  I thought both writers had good things to say.  So my desire is not to be critical of the bloggers or their opinions.  And I do understand the place they were coming from, given the fact that it’s really hard to think outside a small circle of personal experience.  I also want to be sensitive to this issue of privilege, especially after turning my critical eye on a fellow blogger for how she treated the problem.

But here it is: Both blog posts had obviously cisnormative bias in their writing.  Probably unintentionally so.

In the first, About a Boy, Meg Lawton talks with her son about the harsh words used against him at school.  It is otherwise a beautiful, wise, gentle post both about the nurturing of our children and about the feelings we as parents experience when our children are hurting.  But it contained the unfortunate phrase,

The only thing that makes you a boy, is your penis.

The second post was The church is not feminised – blow your noses on your man sized tissues and get over yourselves!  The blogger, Jenny, writes about the tendency of some men (ahem) to complain that the church has been emasculated.  I don’t entirely agree with her theology, but she makes a good point:  Since men still have the bulk of power in the church, they can’t complain about it becoming “feminized.”  This post, too, had a phrase that bothered me:

If you have a penis you’re a man.

Not to sound like I’m obsessed with penises, but what the heck, people?

Neither of the statements made by these bloggers is strictly true.  Certainly, it’s true most of the time.  But not all.  It isn’t the penis that makes one a man.  There is more than one reason a man might not have a penis, and more than one reason a person with a penis might not be a man.

As I said, I can entirely understand the bias of the writers.  In their experience, the people around them are likely to be cisgender, and they are probably unaware of anyone whose medical condition necessitated the removal of the penis.  They probably don’t know (or don’t think they know) anyone intersexed.  So of course they are going to speak from that perspective.  And in the case of the first post, Ms Lawton was also dealing with how to help her non-gender-conforming children process the world around them, which in itself is admirable.

In reading these posts, it occurred to me that I don’t have any idea what makes us men or women.  Obviously, I personally don’t believe it’s the presence or absence of certain genitalia.  Nor do I think it has anything to do with our interests.  I have two non-conforming children, yet both of them (at least at this point) seem pretty clear that their outsides match their insides in terms of gender.  So what does make us men or women or both or neither?

I don’t think I could tell you, even for myself.  Because I’ve never had to struggle with this personally, I’ve never even had to think about it.  I am the possessor of breasts and a uterus; I also just feel like a woman.  Yet I wouldn’t be any less of one if I lost my breasts or uterus to cancer.  I might miss those parts, but not because I had suddenly become a man without them.

It’s probably something worth considering, especially if I want to be able to understand how others think and feel.  It’s worth figuring out why I feel so distinctly womanly, in the same way it was worth thinking about why I feel attracted only to men.  (I think this exercise is worth it for any area of our lives in which we differ from someone else, in order to better understand their experiences.)

If anyone wants to chime in, feel free.  When you think about your masculinity/femininity, what makes you feel that way?  Is it just a matter of “knowing” who you are, or is there something specific?

Notable News: Mutuality Edition, Week of June 1-8, 2012

Posted by Amy in Blogs, Cool Stuff, Doctrine, Gender Roles, Links, News, Relationships and tagged with , , ,

My apologies for posting this so late in the day.  Here are my favorites from the week of synchroblogging inspired by the week of mutuality.

1. First, kudos to Rachel Held Evans for her outstanding work.  She will be continuing to post over the weekend, so be sure to check out what else she has in store (including her own highlights of the best).  Her series has been fantastic.  Here are the posts, in order of appearance:

2. Christian Marriage: Fail?  Pam Hogeweide is one of my favorite bloggers.  In her post My Failed Christian Marriage, she talks about the struggle to fit the ideal for Christian marriage and the joy in finding freedom from those restraints.

3. Fabulosity on Alise Wright’s blog.  Another blogger I just can’t get enough of.  First, Alise catches our attention by reminding us that You Don’t Have to Take Your Clothes Off to Be Egalitarian.  Then, she has the always wonderful Sarah Moon share her thoughts on Too Much in a fantastic guest post.  If you don’t read anything else, read these posts!

4. A couple of men weigh in.  I always like the way Travis Mamone shares his heart.  This post is a good way to introduce some deeper theological constructs without getting bogged down with terminology; it’s nicely put.  Through the trending topic #mutuality2012 on Twitter, I discovered Jonathan Aigner’s post sorry, little girl: a patriarchal response.  Great thoughts on the deficiency of the female gender and faithfully following God’s gifts in our own lives without causing guilt in others.

5. The Best of the Rest.  I could go on and on, listing everything I like and why.  Instead, I will simply list the several other posts that I found meaningful.  Even though we’re all writing on the same thing, each person has a unique voice, an interesting perspective.  What an amazing week it’s been!

Feel free to leave a comment with any blog posts you like on the subject of mutuality/egalitarianism, whether they’re from this week or not.  Don’t forget to link to your own if you wrote something!

 

I don’t want to be a man.

Posted by Amy in Gender Roles and tagged with , ,

The idea that men are superior to women reminds me of a blog post from many moons ago.  The post itself, about women in leadership, was ho-hum.  But the comments were interesting.  Among them was a discussion that ran along these lines:

He:

Women in leadership really just want to be men.

She:

Unless you’re talking about transpeople, that’s not true.  We want to do the same jobs, but we don’t want to be men.

He:

Yes, you do.

The thing is, I have no idea what that means, “you want to be men.”  It sounds vaguely Freudian.  We all just wish we had the Fabulous Power of the Penis.  There seems to be this idea that there is something magical about testosterone that makes men capable of certain things, and women just can’t do them.  Well, I have two things to say about that.  One, there is nothing (aside from producing sperm) that a man can do that a woman can’t, and there’s nothing a woman can do (aside from growing and breastfeeding a baby) that a man can’t do.  Not that we’re interchangeable, just that in terms of capability, we can absolutely do all the same things.  (And research bears this out, there is almost nothing different between the brains of men and the brains of women, among other non-differences.)

Two, I do not now, nor have I ever, wanted to be a man.

I don’t want to shave every day.  I don’t want to have to wear a tie to work.  I definitely don’t want any dangly bits between my legs, that sounds . . . awkward and uncomfortable.  I absolutely think men’s bodies are beautiful (my husband’s in particular), but I don’t want to be in possession of one.

I like being a woman.

I like the things my body can do.  I didn’t enjoy pregnancy, but I sure did like the fact that my body could grow a kid.  I like having breasts.  I like having a husband who enjoys them, and I like that they were extremely useful for feeding a kid in the dead of night without getting up.  Sure, there are things about being a woman I could do without.  But overall, I wouldn’t want to be any other way.

What I do want is to be valued as a human being.  I do want it acknowledged that womanhood does not make me less as a person.  I also want women everywhere to be able to have the jobs they want, the sexuality they want, and the families they want.  I want women to know they don’t need a man to do the rescuing, that they are capable of fighting the dragon alone, with their friends, or as equal partners with their spouses.  I want girls to be encouraged to study math, science, and technology.  I want girls to grow up knowing they can be brain surgeons or CEOs or construction workers or world-class orchestral conductors.  I want women acknowledged in the church as “God’s fellow workers,” and that their hormones and vaginas don’t disqualify them from pastoral leadership.

And guess what?  I want them to be able to do all this as women.  Not as men in disguise, or wannabe men, or people men think wish they were men.  I want women to do all those things not in spite of being women, but because women are just as qualified.  I don’t want women esteemed above men, I want men and women to be treated equally with respect.

You know what else I want?  I want men to stop believing that those women who are ambitious and driven “want to be men.”  Ambition and drive are not male-exclusive traits.  Do you men who say those things have any idea—any at all—how demeaning that is?  It’s not good for women, because it implies that men are superior.  It’s not good for men, because not all men have the leadership qualities and personality traits you associate with masculinity.  And it’s certainly not good for transpeople, who are already marginalized and misunderstood.  So stop it.  Stop saying it.  Stop posting it on web sites.  Stop believing it.

Women, if this is you, and you’ve been victimized by this kind of language, then let’s make our voices heard.  We can’t just sit idly by and allow anyone to think that we just “want to be men.”  Men, if you consider this shameful behavior on the part of your fellow men, then say something!  Misogynous men need to know they don’t speak for you.  If they go on thinking that they are representing all men, they will never  be silenced.

Not only do I not want to be a man, I don’t want to lose my voice as a woman.

More than a Dress-Up Doll

Posted by Amy in Women and tagged with ,

There was a lot of backlash after Sunday’s Super Bowl ads.  I admit that I didn’t pay much attention to most of the event, the game or the ads.  But the one commercial I saw disturbed me, and the ones I heard about the next day even more so.

Sometimes I feel like we women stand up on the rooftops of the world, screaming our lungs out, only to be drowned by the voices of so many people who think we’re just being bitchy.  I’ve had more than enough of the way that media exploits women.  From the ideal body to the ideal sex partner to the ideal career woman (attractive, able to balance it all, and not too “mannish”), we’ve been whored out to the public long enough.  And don’t even start on me about how it’s happening to men, too.  No, it’s not, at least not in the same way.

If I sound angry, it’s because I am.

There are dozens of ways in which we have been reduced to little more than elegant mannequins (or possibly blow-up dolls, to be a bit more crude).  A few points of comparison (and if you think I’m making this up, try using Google):

•Female nudity is played up for sexuality, male for humor:

•On film, full frontal female nudity earns only an R rating.  Any full exposure of male anatomy is an NC-17.

•Women’s bodies are used to sell just about everything.

•Half-clothed women are often seen in the company of fully dressed men.

Is it any wonder that we have trouble distinguishing between when a woman is being modest and when she isn’t?  We’re training ourselves to view women as objects, rather than people.  We’re continuing to allow women to be viewed as the property of men, available 24/7 for their enjoyment.

We’re not going to get anywhere when we talk about women in leadership (of any type) if we don’t get this problem under control.  Those of us in the church must first talk about the ways in which women are exploited before we can begin talking about purity, modesty, and the role of women in the church.  We can’t be silent on this as we have on so many other cultural issues.  Once again, we are being called on to stand up and be the church.

The degradation of women must stop.

Being a Woman Would Be Boring!

Posted by Amy in Women and tagged with ,

I’m having a Proud Mom moment, and I had to share.

S and I have been working on her handwriting.  In each chapter, there is a concept (animals, foods, shapes).  There are various activities designed to give the student a chance to practice writing the words:

We’re working on career words.  Her book shows pictures of different people doing their jobs—doctor, nurse, dentist, teacher, farmer, pilot, firefighter, police officer, barber, grocer, construction worker, chef, and artist.  S and I noticed that almost none of the pictures show women.  In fact, the only jobs it shows being done by women are the nurse, the teacher, and the dentist.  Every other picture shows a man doing the job.

We’ve been talking about it, and how even though the pictures don’t show women, women can do all of those jobs.  The other day, she seemed rather fed up with seeing only pictures of men.  Our conversation went like this:

S: It’s dumb that they only show men.

Me: Why is that?

S: Women can do those jobs too.  Women can do anything they want.

Me: Yes, they can.  We’ve been talking about that.  Why do you think it’s important?

S: Because if those [nurse, teacher, and dentist] were really our only choices, that would be boring!

Me: You’re right, it would be.

S [scornfully]: This book must have been written by a man.

I like to hope that I’m doing a good job with S, making sure she knows that her options aren’t limited.  It’s funny, I’m trying to teach her that she can be a strong, independent woman, when I have fallen into a fairly traditional role.  I’ve been a stay-at-home mom for over eight years, and my two degrees are in…nursing and education.  But I chose this life, I wasn’t forced into it.  My husband would have been just as happy to be married to me if I’d been a doctor and he’d been a stay-at-home dad, or if we’d both been police officers.  He didn’t marry me because I was prepared to be his “little woman.”

Bear with me, this may seem unrelated, but it’s not.  The other night, one of our church elders came to see us about some business. (Relax, it was all good.  It wasn’t one of those kinds of meetings.)  During part of the conversation, he praised me for valuing our kids and staying home with them.  But he also praised women who hold jobs outside the home, speaking blessings over their work.  He’s a fairly traditional guy, but the whole time the three of us were talking, I never once felt as though he didn’t care what I was saying.  He directed specific questions to each of us, but only in the sense that each of us has areas of expertise.  As a woman, a mother, and a person of faith, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the respect we received.

This is the way we expect our son to behave.  This is the way we expect our daughter to be treated.  So far, I think we’re on the right track.