What?!
This was my immediate response to a talk I had just heard at my friends’ Southern Baptist church. I had a whole list of ridiculous phrases I was about to rattle off- “complete obedience to one’s husband” was one, for instance, that this man had just said to us. I was ready to, in fact, make jokes about this talk in order to mitigate some of the anger I felt, assuming that my friends would be in total agreement with me. They weren’t.
I will, quickly, summarize his argument:
Women are precious creatures that must be protected, and their fathers and husbands can do this for them. This was written in the Bible and is God’s will, as it is His will for the husband to make major decisions in the marriage.
These decisions, in fact, included even decisions that are primarily the woman’s and hardly should rest with the man at all, husband or not: her career, the birth control she uses. The talk was wrong in so many ways. It used the Bible and God to defend misogyny. The ideas it promoted left the woman literally enslaved to her husband. If I were to give the talk any points at all- and it truly made my blood boil- it is in that it was not in the least bit subtle. It told my friends directly that the rest of their lives would be dedicated to their husbands. The most shocking part was that my friends were not outraged- at all. In fact, they told me their mothers both lived and had preached this to them their whole lives.
Let’s get this straight: I grew up in Oklahoma, but I do not align myself with many of the mainstream views in Oklahoma.
My mother and father raised me to think and act independently. They tell me I should marry if I am absolutely certain about it, and not otherwise, and, after mistakenly believing I was a lesbian due to the discovery of a friend’s book, were perfectly fine with it. Even though I knew many of my friends disagreed with me on other issues: abortion, for instance, I had always assumed equality in marriage was a given, an issue long since agreed upon. Another thing I want to get straight: my friends acted no differently from me back in our high school days. They were leaders in school clubs, fought and made up with friends, had boyfriends and dumped them. They never seemed to be the type to agree to be subservient for the rest of their lives. This is why the talk was shocking, but their reaction to it was 100 times so.
I did not speak up enough against him. I did not protest loudly but merely weakly. I did not say, “Fuck him.” They basically did not listen, defended him, and we all dropped it. This left us, in fact, exactly with what our parents had told us to believe. Nothing had changed. We would go back to college with two profoundly different worldviews, and I would never think the same way about many Oklahoman marriages again.
This made me profoundly angry not only with the speaker, and other such speakers, but also at my friends. I realize it is wrong to solely blame my friends - that what has created them has been this environment of repression. All the same, they are able to read and think- they can see the outside world of strong, liberated women. They could be these women. Stand up for yourselves! Make your own decisions! Change the world! I only wish I had yelled it before.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Christianity, Misogyny, and Anger in Oklahoma.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15591
I grew up in churches like this. My Mom is one of those people who protests loudly though. Thank goodness. But she is always beaten down by numbers. And by the bible. Thats sadly one of the reasons I no longer go to church. It's just exhausting. You can't argue with a person if the person has a book that says everything they say is write. That book being the absolute truth and if you disagree with it you are sinning.
Does this mean I am now giving up arguing that women should be equal? HELL NO! But I think sadly I cant change some people minds. Also it's so disheartening to be the party pooper, the boat rocker, the person who's starting trouble because you just want to say what you believe is true.
I'm not giving up or shutting up. But I am looking for a place where they believe God isn't so small and petty.
this is why jimmy carter left the SBC, and why my parents left it as soon as they could (as adults) and why i'm baffled by the many many STRONG matriarchs in my family who still belong to it. blows my mind honestly. the only surprising part (to me) of your piece here is how you escaped knowing about that aspect of it if you grew up there.
InfamousQBert, you gave me the thought that the women's relationship to the church is like a battered woman's relationship to her abusive husband-- she stays, because she gets used to it and is offered a glimmer of hope from time to time that he can be caring.
I think that the bible is primarily patriarchal propaganda.
For that matter, God as described in the Bible pretty much IS the ultimate abuser ("Love me or you go to Hell"? Nothing abusive about THAT, no sir)
Devonian, thank you so much for pointing this out. There are amazing parallels between the abuser-victim relationship and the Yahweh-Israel relationship in the Old Testament: use of force, use of isolation, fostering absolute dependence, sexual jealousy, abuser placing all blame for problems on the abused, a "honeymoon" period in between violent episodes, etc.
Misogyny is pretty much hardwired into Christianity, its one of the reasons I could never go back to being a Christian. Good on you for realizing what a fucked up situation this sort of "tradition" engenders.
This is just not true. There are many Christian churches--including not just liberal denominations, but also congregations in the evangelical tradition--that do fully embrace women's equality and even advocate for women's rights as part of a larger goal of achieving God's will for social justice.
If you read the gospels, the Acts and the epistles with a view towards the historical context in which they occurred, it quickly becomes clear that both Jesus' actions and the early church were much more progressive than the culture in which they existed in terms of rights accorded to women and opportunities for women to play leadership roles in the church. (The fact that women were often key leaders in the early church is one reason that I get very angry with churches today, like the SBC, that deny women opportunities to serve as clergy or elders.)
Yes, there is a lot of disturbing stuff in terms of the treatment of women in the old testament, but again--look at the culture in which these things are taking place. Even some of the old testament teachings that seem misogynist to us today actually represented steps forward, in terms of caring for women, relative to the cultures around them--that's not to say it's ok, or that we should follow those rules today, but it's something to keep in mind.
More to the point, it's telling that throughout the story of the old testament, God repeatedly uses women who are strong, independent, and don't remotely look like the subservient, "pure" model that the SBC and other conservative groups hold up today, to achieve his purpose. Miriam, Rahab, Tamar, Ruth. Judging by these women, even the God of the old testament is not a misogynist.
Misogyny is not hardwired into Christianity. Misogyny is but one of many symptoms of a fallen human nature that leads people to seek power over others and keeps us from treating all people with love and respect. Christianity seeks to address the underlying problem and can therefore help address the symptom as well. The fact that many people and congregations have, as flawed humans, taken advantage of and perverted faith to their own misogynistic ends does not negate that.
THANK YOU! As a Christian woman myself, I agree wholeheartedly.
Yes, there is a lot of disturbing stuff in terms of the treatment of women in the old testament, but again--look at the culture in which these things are taking place.
The culture in which religion takes place is very important to consider. I'm a Reform Jew, but I've studied under Orthodox Jews who truly, truly believe that the separate spheres are to be equally revered and honored and that even though women and men are given different tasks and duties, neither is more important or superior, and that they're equally vital.
And my argument is great, that might be what you think the Bible truly says, but that's not the society we live in. The society in which this religion is operating in DOES hold up male roles as being superior, and it makes it impossible for the religion to operate as it's meant to (although I disagree with them, as well, on how it's meant to operate - but that's an interpretation issue, not a sociological issue).
I should add, I've heard that argument from both male and female Orthodox Jews, and one woman recommended the book (I think I have the title right) To Be A Jewish Woman by Lisa Aiken for an exploration of celebrating traditional female roles in Judaism in a healthy, non-submissive-or-inferior way. I have only read excerpted bits of it, and while it seems naive to me, it's an interesting (although, given my spiritual stance, ultimately useless to me) perspective.
I completely agree with Sara. Having had a few harrowing anti-feminist experiences while visiting friends' churches in my youth, never in any of the congregations I have belonged to have I felt in any way limited or proscribed by my gender. I have never heard, in any church I have belonged to, a word spoken from the pulpit against the LGBT community, or against contraception or even abortion (the abortion issue was just politely ignored, but the contraception was just not a controversial thing within these denominations). I recently heard a female pastor in a mainstream denomination speak out on behalf of gay marriage, arguing for equality. You just have to find a feminist-friendly church.
It isn't just the Old Testament. Most of modern Christianity is based on the teachings of Paul, and he's just full of bullshit. Take a look at 1 Timothy sometime, or some of the more salient parts of 1 Corinthians. And if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God - which most mainstream churches do, at least on paper - then you can't handwave these away as "based on the societal context." It's all or nothing.
And if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God - which most mainstream churches do, at least on paper - then you can't handwave these away as "based on the societal context." It's all or nothing.
This is not a well-informed statement. The brand of fundamentalist Christianity that has made itself prominent in the United States in recent decades does believe the Bible is the literal word of God and can be interpreted literally, but Catholics and Mainline Protestants--the majority of Christians--do not.
Even many evangelicals, who do believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, also believe that word is presented in a way that is open to interpretation, including interpretation that takes into account literary forms and cultural and historic context, because many parts of the Bible were written specifically to particular groups of people at particular times and places, and modern believers need to take those circumstances into account when seeking out the messages it has for all believers today.
So, for example, I can read Paul's statements about wives and husbands in Ephesians 5, recognize that they are part of a much larger section discussing how all Christians should seek to let go of their selfishness and desire for dominance and seek to serve one another; notice that Paul devotes a lot more time in this sentence instructing husbands to treat their wives with respect than he does addressing women; notice the respect with which Paul frequently addresses women leaders in the church in his writings; note the prominent roles that both Paul's letters and the book of Acts depict women playing in the church; note that Jesus' behavior in the gospels frequently involved crossing established gender divisions and engaging women as people on equal terms with men in a way that was revolutionary at the time; reach a conclusion far different than those of the pastor in the original post; get very angry with my fellow Christians who seize on this verse to oppress women; recognize that we are all fallen and that misogyny within the church is a direct result of the fall and the impacts of sin on the human heart leading to desire to control and oppress others; and seek to forgive while also praying their eyes will be opened.
No, I'd say it's fairly well informed. Go look at the "Creed," "What We Believe," etc. sections of churches, and they'll pretty much uniformly mention that the Bible is the literal, inspired word of God. A lot of people in the church don't really follow this, of course - you'd be surprised at how little a lot of churchgoers know about their religion - but it's there.
And even if an individual church don't, it will probably use teaching materials, Bible studies, devotionals, etc. from larger churches that do. Just because someone doesn't go to a megachurch doesn't mean their materials aren't from one.
So if an individual churchgoer holds that opinion, it's going to be a source of major cognitive dissonance.
Inspired, yes. Literal, no. Most mainline denominations (Methodists, Lutherans, even Baptists) aren't literalists. SBC is a fairly recent offshoot from the Baptist tradition.
No.
It depends heavily on the denomination. I went to Catholic School for 12 years (that's 1 hour of Bible Study every day in the Catholic tradition - with nuns leading us), and every single nun, every reference to opinion from the Vatican, supported by the Principle who would lead the school in morning prayer who is by extension under partial orders from the Archbishop of the area - states that there are many aspects of The Bible that even the Vatican and the Pope know are ridiculous. Misogyny and Christianity are not synonymous - in all of the mass I have had to sit through, never has a priest mentioned even the thought that women have a "place". The uproar from the congregation would be insane.
Do NOT generalize an entire religion based on it's extremist branches - which too many other religions have. Some branches of Judaism have a very extreme view of women, but that doesn't make it an inherently misogynist religion. Some branches of Islam have a very extreme view of women, but that doesn't make it an inherently misogynist religion. Some branches of Christianity have a very extreme view of women, but the rest of us sure as hell are not that crazy!
Stop insulting, bashing, and hating the religion of my family!
I'm not judging by the people who follow the religion. I'm judging by what's written down. I treat the Bible like any other piece of written prose. Like a self-help book, maybe. And if someone publishes a self-help book with the amount of bare-faced misogyny -- this came out millennia ago, it doesn't need to be hidden -- I'm going to denounce it about as strongly as I can. Downthread there are some great (well, not great) examples of this.
I agree. I still don't know ANY churches here who interpret the bible literally - I only know such churchs exist in the South because of sites like this. I think most people seem to think their experiences are universal but they aren't.
I don't doubt many of you have only encountered such churchs, but go to other regions, other countries, etc. and you will find the vast majority do not believe it literally.
Such churches are very common in my neck of the woods (Pennsylvania), as they probably are elsewhere. I'm very worried about the influence that patriarchal, fundamentalist Christian churches are exerting right now in pockets of the country.
I live in Colorado and grew up in a baptist atmosphere (but am now an atheist). Its very strong here in regards to the whole sexism thing. Here you have fFcus on the Family and Promise Keepers (they promise to keep you oppressed-heh!)
As I said, "pretty much hardwired" as in the documentation is full of Misogynist rules and statements from old to new testament. Some people feel one can interpret things one way or another, I feel that those people are whitewashing over the facts.
It frustrates me that there are so many people that agree with your comment, because it shows that there are still so many people who need to create a world of black and white, good and bad. It's obvious that this kind of mental organizing is the root cause to so many sufferings in the world, not excluding the misogynist ideologies that we're speaking out against here.
In terms of thought process, it is no different to call all Christians misogynist than to call all women emotional and irrational. If we want to make a difference in the world, this kind of thinking is only a hindrance.
As someone who is no longer a Christian, I sympathize, but disagree with your blanket statements.
I never said anything about Christians (except that I could not go back) I talked about Christianity. I love and respect my Christian friends and family, I'm just at odds with their religion in places and find it frustrating when people act like a few miracles and promises towards the end of the book white was the entire rulebook.
Holy time machine, Batman! This crap still goes on?!
The bible is full of misogyny; indeed, one of its purposes through out history has been to keep the social order and that social order always has men above women. The more literal the denomination takes the bible, the more misogynistic the church is.
Many more liberal churches try to just not talk about those part of the bible, but the harm is done every time a little girl reads the bible (as she is encourage to do in Sunday school) and hears that she is below men. Honestly, reading the bible through was what made me break from Christianity- I cannot believe in or worship a god that constantly places women below men.
Joan
Same here, Joan. The church's treatment of women is the exact reason why I began questioning my Baptist church's beliefs and why I now identify as a Buddhist atheist.
Indeed. This page gives plenty of examples:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
And it's not just the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 14:34-36:
"34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&version=72;
Me and my fiance are both christians - and for both of us, this kind of thing makes our blood boil. Please know that not every christian thinks along those lines. We recently left the church that we both grew up in because of (among other reasons) there were always undertones of how woman should be submissive (they didn't talk about it explicity, but it was just kind of the messed up beliefs of most people there).
We ended up finding this quirky little church. The PASTORS (a husband and wife) consider each other equals. A while back, someone came from the Gideons (those people that leave bible's in all the hotel rooms) and talked for a while - at the end of the talk he made a call to the Christian 'brothers' to see if any of them wanted to join the Gideons -- he made it very clear (without saying it directly, of course) that women were not allowed. Well, the male pastor (who happened to be speaking that week - they trade off) got up and, in front of everybody, ranted passionately about men and women be equal and how people take a few verses out of context to promote their beliefs, etc, etc... It was really awesome and really encouraging to see that not everyone who believes in God is screwed up...
Now, I'm not really trying to defend christians as a group. I'll be the first to admit that, for the most part, they get so many things so disgustingly wrong. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that not every christian is also a misogynist.
After reading your post, it seems to me as though you're criticizing women who act hypocritically when they parrot or condone the traditional conservative Baptist line that a woman ought to be subservient to her husband---while making no attempt to follow through it in their own lives. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Since I grew up in the South, I saw much the same kind of false piety on Sundays that somehow didn't translate to the other six days of the week.
And one must admit that there's a certain degree of romance in the idea that protecting a woman's virginity from defilement ought to be a paramount concern for every man. There's an amount of chivalry and nobility of purpose underlying it, but when it becomes used to justify that women ought to be seen as utterly fragile, weak, and worthy of protection because they are clearly not capable of being as strong as a man in every way, therein lies the problem.
But to qualify this statement, I need to point out that many women I've dated or loved over the years felt more comfortable when I was in their presence because they felt safer---and I think there's a certain biological component to it, since women are born with strength limitations to those of a man, though I need to add that this doesn't mean that they can't take self defense classes or learn ways to protect themselves without need of male company. Again, I do remember how I dated a woman once who was absolutely tiny in build and a full foot shorter than me---as I learned later, she almost always dated men who were much bigger than she was because then she felt protected.
And what you also talk about also is the tension between personal responsibility and environmental conditioning. Since it is always a thorny topic, I'm afraid I don't have a good answer on the matter. I think it's an issue that depends heavily on an individual by individual basis. We can't have a one-size-fits-all approach because each of us has a different blend of factors, conditioning, life experience, biological makeup, and other influential components.
yea, I don't find it romantic that some guy wants to protect my virginity...pretty sure I can do that on my own if I choose to. Knowing the kind of crap women often put up with when they are alone it is not surprising that some of the women you dated felt safer with you than alone. But IMO, this has little to do with biology and everything to do with a culture in whichc women and their bodies are still considered public property and where some people feel that it is okay to do or say certain things precisely because these are women who happen to be alone. I'm sure most of us here have heard tales of the different treatment of women when they are with men versus when they are alone...people acting like women don't know anything or can't make decisions without some male authority (buying cars, appliances, etc), women claiming that a man is a brother or boyfriend in order to put an end to the flirtations and come-ons of other men...the list goes on and on.
"And one must admit that there's a certain degree of romance in the idea that protecting a woman's virginity from defilement ought to be a paramount concern for every man."
Comrade Kevin, I appreciate that you are trying to be sympathetic to women but I think you're making a big mistake here. The above situation is only remotely romantic if you believe that virginity is a superior condition and sex = defilement. Partners being respectful of each other's sexuality and limits is important, but it isn't romantic to me if someone thinks not having sex is a way to protect me. What if I want to have sex? Then you're saying that not only am I defiling myself, but some man is supposed to be protecting me from that. No thanks.
Also, in regards to women you have dated enjoying a difference in physical size and strength, please remember that those were the feelings of one or a few individual women, not an entire gender.
Again, I do remember how I dated a woman once who was absolutely tiny in build and a full foot shorter than me---as I learned later, she almost always dated men who were much bigger than she was because then she felt protected.
I think that has more to do with sociology than anything else. I have a good friend who insists on only dating men who are bigger than her because it makes her feel skinny. She's complained that she feels like "an Amazon" or "a giant" when dating guys who were her height or shorter or scrawny. Completely a self-esteem, body-image issue, nothing to do with any biological, women-need-to-be-protected thing.
Sorry, but what? Its not "romantic" for any party involved. Where you got that from is beyond. The rest of the post, is just to horrid to even reply too.
Honey, I'm a girl from the conservative south and pretty old-school and romantic, but there is nothing romantic about fetishizing virginity and wielding one's mighty manhood to protect it.
The problem with statements like 'women are born with strength limitations compared to those of a man' is that while on a general level you could well show the 'average man' is stronger, these statements exclude from their own gender the men who are physically weak and the women who are physically strong, making these people feel they are not what gender normativity posits should follow naturally on from what sex they are.
Plus, as a thin guy, I can counter your point by suggesting plenty of women don't seem to mind being with someone slighter than them and there's no logical reason why some women wouldn't enjoy being with someone they're stronger than, because men and women are not biologically different and so the thrill you get from being stronger than your partner - if you do - or they do from being slighter than you, can just as easily be experienced the other way round!
I am commenting for the first time in Feministing.
This post reminds me of something that happened to me last week, in my home city, New York City:
I took a cab home on Thursday night. In the cab, the driver was listening to a radio show. I honestly hate it when cabbies do this, because I often wind up listening to talk shows spewing highly political and often unpleasant content that I just don't want to hear at the end of a long day when I am tired and I am paying for a supposedly stress-reducing cab ride. I know I need to be more assertive about telling the cab driver that I am paying for this ride and don't want to listen to that station. I do believe that is one of the rights of a passenger in a cab - to not have to listen to the radio at all even.
That night's garbage fest was a religious fundamentalist call in talk show, in which a man, presumably a priest or minister, was advising a young female caller on how to be more obedient to her husband. The most outrageous quote I can recall went something like this: "You have to tell your husband that you are doing the best you can, and if you can only be obedient 92% of the time and then if he has to beat you, so be it. You have to pray to be more obedient to your husband."
At first, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I really wanted to give the benefit of the doubt and assumed I had heard wrong, and that I didn't hear the beginning of the call, so maybe I missed some important contextual information and that the thrust of this segment was not that a woman should be completely obedient to her husband and if she is not, he has the right to beat her. But as the show continued while I sat in the car, seething with anger, it was clear that I had not heard wrong. It was a real shock to be forced to confront this narrow-minded misogyny in a place as progressive as New York City.
My mind raced as I tried to figure out what to do. I knew I had to say something, but people can be truly crazy, and I didn't want to wind up being thrown out of a moving cab or something. I shouldn't have even tipped the guy, but it's so ingrained in me, that I did anyway. However, as I was getting out of the car I said to the African American male driver: "Most women in New York City would NOT want to listen to this radio show. Ok?! I'm just telling you." And he nodded and said ok, and I got out of the car, practically shaking with anger and wishing I had said something even harsher. I really should have. I am so sick of being nice and a stereotypically demure and quiet good girl, and letting this kind of bullshit go on.
I hope next time I find myself in a situation like that, that I will have more courage to be tougher, and a) give the jerk behind the wheel a real piece of my mind and b) not tip at all or be very stingy with the tip.
This was me being an activist in my own way.
What an icky situation. I like that you told him that most women wouldn't want to listen to that crap -- maybe that will make him think twice about having it on in the car.
I wouldn't be stingy with the tip, though. In general, the cabbie can have whatever they want going on the radio when you get in, and then from that point on it's your job to tell him or her if you want them to turn the radio off, turn it down, or change the station. If you didn't express your discomfort until it was time to pay, then undertipping is basically punishing the guy for his political/religious beliefs, rather than for a bad cab ride.
And sorry to nitpick, but I'm kind of confused why you felt the need to mention the driver's race in this situation... did that seem relevant to you at the time? (genuine curiosity, not being sarcastic).
As I mentioned, I was not stingy with the tip, because it would not have felt right to me. I generally try to be as generous and fair as I can be when tipping, whether it's in a restaurant or in a cab. Other people I told this story to said I should have stiffed the guy, but I didn't even want to do that, or rant and rave at him, because then he would think the misogynist on the radio was correct in saying women are unruly and need to be tamed, and the driver would therefore have probably not even really listened to my criticism at all.
You are right, ultimately, the race of the driver should not have mattered. That's why I didn't mention it towards the beginning of the comment. I was just trying to paint a full picture of what happened to me that night with as many details as possible. I guess now that a point has been made of this, it could be helpful to note that it's not just white Christian men living in the South who are in favor of relationships in which women are fully subservient to men.
Lily A said a lot of what I wanted to post. Anyway, here a few tips on how to ask for a station change without invoking zealot craziness or starting to a fight.
1.Say that you have been having a bad day and that music might cheer you up.
or
2. Say you are getting over a headache and the sound is causing you pain.
If none of these work or the station is just very vile. Then get the name and number of the station. First either e-mail or mail them your concerns or if they are encouraging violence then you might want to pursue further action. Don't let them get away with both approving and encouraging DV.
In the future, I will just be sure to speak up sooner, politely asking the radio to be turned off. It should really be as simple as that, and I shouldn't be afraid to do it.
In New York City, you have an absolute right to a radio free cab ride - if you're uncomfortable with being assertive, all you have to do is to ask the driver to turn the radio off.
If he doesn't comply, you can report him to the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission - he'll have to take a day off from driving to go in for the hearing and he'll have to pay a fine of, I believe, $ 200.
Thanks for the information. I really don't want to bring legal consequences in a situation like this. I know these guys work hard and don't make a lot of money. In the future, I will just be sure to speak up sooner.
I'm also from Oklahoma and I can't even begin to count how many times I've held my tongue and then later kicked myself for doing so in an argument like the OP's. But the simple fact of the matter is that it's impossible for me to always be an activist here.
A lot of the replies have here have been about religious implications of the post and I think they're valid to some extent but I want to be perfectly clear about my stance on religious groups in Oklahoma. The fact of the matter is that their goals have nothing at all to do with religion. These are 100% political groups. They are motivated and they are terrifying. In high school I was forced to transfer to another district after receiving threats and being continuously harassed for refusing to participate in the "voluntary" See You at the Pole gathering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_You_at_the_Pole) organized by my classmates. Oklahoma is a hostile environment for anyone who deviates from the status quo and activism here looks different than it does in other places.
To the OP: I don't blame you for not saying more to your friend. I often lapse into stunned silence upon learning what my friends and family truly believe about gender equality. It's not likely that you'll change many minds here but there are plenty of other ways to combat the rampant and overt sexism and racism in this state.
I'll add to the other apologists. While the Bible is absolutely a misogynistic book, many liberal churches do even more than just ignore the bad parts: they challenge them. The churches I've belonged to over the past 10 years (changing only because I moved around a bit) acknowledge the book, but continually point out the flaws with the written text and how it came to be. Without getting into a history lesson, there's a lot of controversy surrounding how the Bible as we know it and how it came to be, and there are great ministers who challenge what it says. So, it takes a lot of shopping around, and there is still a LOT of work to be done, but believe me, feminist churches do exist!
See, that's is what I need to find. I haven't been to a church in YEARS because I got so tired of the same old marriage, relationships, kids, heteronormative, white, middle class message every single Sunday. (Guess it doesn't help that this was the church my parents chose, and I know not every church is the exact same but I always seemed to end up in a very white middle class church on Sundays) What if I didn't plan on getting married? I definitely don't plan on having kids. Not to mention the billions of sermons on tithing. -_- This does not speak to me in the least. And I've always had my problems with the bible, which I still hold is a book written by MEN. Even if it's the word of god people still have an uncanny ability to mess stuff up royally and twist things to suit them. The idea of a church that actually questions and confronts bullshit scripture and doesn't just take it all as the truth just makes me an unbelievable amount of happy. I never considered confronting scripture as "picking and choosing what I like," as the conservatives LOVE to say, since it seems to me taking the homosexuality is an abomination line but skipping over something as simple as don't eat pigs is being kinda pick and choose as well.
But if feminist churches do exist then hopefully I can find one close by. Dunno how many there will could be in Houston...
pmsrhino: you should look into UCC - United Church of Christ, which is what the Obama's belong to and MCC - Metropolitan Church of Christ. Both are very liberal and MCC was founded specifically as a queer community. You're in Houston, but if you're ever in Dallas, Cathedral of Hope is one of the biggest queer dominant church communities in the nation. I don't know if you're queer, but they're very welcoming and definitely feminist.
Also, if you're looking for one of the more traditional denominations, consider episcopalian. They're widely known as queer and woman friendly. They're the ones having the big brouhaha because of the gay bishop and gay marriages. Some conservative members are threatening to leave, but the church as a whole is sticking to their beliefs.
Thanks, I'll have to look into it. :D
Yep, UCC, Episcopalian, and perhaps Unitarian would suit your needs. depends on your taste and the individual congregations. Unitarians are probably the least traditional, Episcopalians the most, in terms of worship style.
I feel compelled to comment even though it's clear that those people who want to believe that the Christian church is not misogynist will continue to believe this regardless of all the evidence.
I can't really understand why anyone would want to apologise for the Bible and the message of subservience contained therein. I certainly can't understand how anyone could try to argue that the old testament isn't misogynist. I find it very difficult to believe that stoning women to death for not being virgins (just for example) represented a 'step forward' at the time.
I heartily recommend this book to anyone interested in the Bible's attitude towards women. In it, Annie Laurie Gaylor (the author) makes the following point (among others): why spend so much time and effort trying to reinterpret the Bible and apologise for it, when it is far easier to just reject the whole rotten philosophy and start from scratch, making your own decisions about ethics and gender relations?
I genuinely don't get what is so wonderful about believing in an unsubstantiated supernatural being, that a person would be willing to sell other human beings down the river, plus sacrifice their own ambitions and desires, in order to do it.
I agree to an extent.
However, not everyone reads the Bible literally and many feel that the message itself is timeless while the cultural context must be examined with a critical eye. Also, many believe that Jesus was a radical egalitarian (which he was to some extent) and that the teachings of Jesus are what matters. I personally defiantly think it is mental gymnastics and takes a willingness to pick, choose and make excuses but some people will also use the argument that change has to be incremental in order for it to be accepted, or that the Bible is not inerrant b/c it was written by men. For some, faith is a crucial part of their selves they are not willing to part with and there are many feminist interpretations of the Bible (feministe did a great review of one but I forget the name).
While I personally disagree with such views in part b/c I expect a little better of a supposed all-powerful God than mandating rape and slavery and am not willing to disregard the entire OT or believe that a god could not really send a message of equality and respect for human rights and make it so people it received it. But as frustrating as I find the mental justifications of the people who do, I still try not to be so quick to question them. For many, faith is an extremely important part of who they are and even shapes their feminism. And frankly,for the most part I only care what people believe in so far as it affects what they do.
The Old Testament can be misogynist without every Christian church group also being misogynist. Institutions can change and grow.
What do people get out of belonging to a church? A social support system. Community. A space to mobilize grassroots social change. Churchgoing isn't all about spiritual beliefs.
I'm agnostic myself and have gone to church only a handful of times in my entire life. And I used to think things like jeez, church is misogynistic, women shouldn't go. Or Christianity is homophobic, why are gays and lesbians trying to get acceptance there? Why would they want in a system that tells them they're awful people?
Then I realized it wasn't my decision to make.
If you'll forgive the irony, AMEN! While the Christian tradition does contain some positive elements, I decided long ago that it was too broken for me to fix, and left.
Thank you for putting that into words I more eloquently than I could ever.
I here this reasoning all the time and it sickens me when it is suggested that this kind of "protection" is what all women need and should want and that it is the only/best way to form a family.
However, some women do want this family model and it does not necessarily mean they are oppressed or have internalized oppression. Some women believe it is in accordance with their religious beliefs, and many just want to feel "protected" and cared for for once (though this model of womanhood is problematic in and of itself,it is one many women have never obtained but would like to). Many women feel that having a man as head of household brings balance and harmony and reduces pressure on them. I have seen this sentiment especially expressed by women who either grew up without a father and/or are single mothers themselves. Some women have never had the husband as head of household model and desire it strongly. I believe there is often a problem with them believing this is the only way to form a family or feeling restricted in their choices (like the Quiverfull father who admitted he wouldn't support his daughters going to college or having career expectations), but there are also a number of women who have been introduced to different family molds and feel that man as HOH with them being in obedience to him (including number of children and career decisions) is what is best. Some women have tried a marriage that was equal but came to the conclusion that obedience to the husband brought more stability and peace. Some women have no problem being in leadership roles outside the house or being assertive in their dating habits up until marriage, but know this is how they want their marriage to be.I hold nothing against them and it doesn't necessarily make them oppressed.
My only problem is when they make assertion that this is what is best for all women and that it is what women need. I also have a problem with preachers preaching this message from the pulpits because so much of what they say is taking at face value and as the ways things need to be.
I have seen this sentiment especially expressed by women who either grew up without a father and/or are single mothers themselves. Some women have never had the husband as head of household model and desire it strongly.
that's funny, because i grew up in a very matriarchal-by-default family, so i ended up feeling like i SHOULD be running my own family. beyond other things, i've always been highly distrustful of men telling me anything about how to run a household or manage my money. i certainly don't need one to protect me now when none have ever been around to protect me for the last 30 years.
I also grew up in a matriarchal household and did not mean to imply all women that did feel this way, but many do. As a matter of fact, despite having NO men around (mother, grandma, and great grandma who was widowed), they all advocate, esp. mom and grandma a traditional household. It wasn't my mom's reality but it is her ideal. I also know the difference that a support network can make b/c I had the benefit of living in a multi-generational household were there were always two people working and my mom had a state job so health care was not a concern. The second part of my life we did not have that network and I saw the way she struggled.
So yeah, for some women they know how hard it is truly be a single parent, and when you mix this with some Christian heritages the model that they believe will work best for them is a husband headed household. And while I said that I have a problem with these women advocating this as "natural" or the "best way", I do understand that some women do want to be taken care of and fulfill the traditional wife ideal and have a husband who makes them feel provided for and protected. Not every woman wants to be the head of household or even have as much authority as her husband.Some women are tired of being expected or made to be the provider or HOH, and some simply do not believe it is in accordance with their religious teachings, and others have different reasons. For many women in this country the role of a stay at home wife who has a husband that protects and provides for her is a model they want to live by, I find that model problematic but not necessarily their decision to want to live by it.
"However, some women do want this family model and it does not necessarily mean they are oppressed or have internalized oppression."
If a woman chooses subservience while denying that it is subservience, that's a textbook case of internalizing oppression.
Growing up in the Bible Belt, I was familiar with this line of thought. It wasn't what my parents taught us, but I was exposed to it through friends and occasionally visiting other churches for softball games and things. I rejected it, but I believed (and still believe) it wasn't my place to inform friends who had grown up with this line of thinking that they were completely, utterly wrong. It just isn't my place, any more than I would tell a person of another faith that their entire worldview is, according to the worldview I grew up with, wrong.
I grew up going to church, but in a fairly liberal congregation and in a denomination that has many women in top leadership roles. I truly believe that there are pockets of Christianity where women hold full "citizenship" and these stereotypes are not promoted. However, they can be hard to find. I look for churches that have women in top positions - not just at the local level but in their national organizations.
I realize that I'm very lucky in that religion and Christianity have never been a gender-oppressing force in my life. I've never been in a religious environment where scriptures were used to support the subjugation of women, or where tasks were strictly divided by gender. Even in the conservative South, it has been possible for me to find churches that have not shoved gender stereotypes down my through.
Religion is not for everyone, but I think it's important to remember that not every sect or group interprets their religion in the same way.
That said, I'm sorry you had that experience. I just recently had the experience of finding out that a friend subscribes to a very narrow role for herself as a new wife, and it was upsetting to me. But hopefully feminists - including Christian Feminists - can work to set positive examples and keep challenging tradition within their communities of faith.
It would be interesting to know what the average age of first marriage is for the members of this church, and also the average number of marriages they have over their lifetime.
My experience (I have family in OKC) is that good southern baptist boys and girls marry pretty much straight out of high school, have a kid or two, divorce at 22, marry again, maybe have another kid or two, and potentially rinse and repeat the divorce + remarry.
It's really damn easy to nod your head about this B.S. when everyone is looking at you and expecting you to be complacent and compliant.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/All-over-Oklahoma/Oklahoma-For-Reproductive-Justice/106169302408?ref=nf#/pages/All-over-Oklahoma/Oklahoma-For-Reproductive-Justice/106169302408
The nice thing about religion is that it is personal and open to interpretation. I was raised a Jew and have bounced around with my beliefs, finally settling on agnostic. With that said, many people will interpret it in ways that work for them, and aren't so nice for others. We could go on bashing christianity for hours, but let's not forget that plenty of other religions have also oppressed not just women, but many other groups as well.
I had a great professor this year who explained to me that not all christians were that image we have misogynists who tell you that having sex will make you die. He explained something to me about Paulists and how that affected the attitude of the group. It made me realize there are lots of educated people out there who don't just blindly follow.
With that said, religion can also be twisted to say what you want it to. That is one problem with 'humans' interpretation of 'G-d's word'. If you live in the DC area, there is something called The Mclean Bible Church, lead by Lon Solomon. He's all over the radio, promoting his megachurch with 'Not a Sermon, Just a Though!' I tuned him out for a while until my sister got sucked into it by a friend. One day she brought a 'teen bible' home that was written at about a second grade reading level, and basically said, woman should obey her husband!! At this point,she started to question. And to her surprise, the other fourteen year old who was bringing her to church told her that that was the way G-d made humans!! For woman to obey her husband!! My sister's a smart girl, she got out of there quick.
What I take from all this is that religion can be a pretty great thing, but it is also a very personal thing, and open to interpretation. Maybe if we want a true understanding of our higher being's word, we should all learn the original languages it was written down in and study it like that. Or maybe just accept that we'll never truly understand that type of higher being if there is one :)
Anyways, let's not beat any one group too badly. Religion and spirituality should be used for personal enjoyment, enhancement, and soul searching, not to control or diminish any other group let it be through marital traditions or any other practice.
I would have walked right out. I'm lucky in that while growing up our church had some really narrowminded ministers, Mom would always tell me when they were wrong. We had a female minister for a while who was awesome, but she got in a fight with our arch bishop over gay marriage, she wanted to perform them and he forbids it (in Canada a religious leader can refuse to perform a gay marriage). So she found out the nearest arch bishop who was cool with it and moved away.
Its not special to Christianity, sadly. I'm Buddhist, and on a Buddhist site I visit an actual Buddhist teacher said women will have more trouble becoming enlightened, because our raging hormones clouds our thinking so much. I've heard of homophobic teachers as well, its really sad.
It's good to know there are other Oklahomans on here. This is an experience I've had repeatedly. I don't know about the rest of the Bible Belt or the rest of America but the environment here is Oklahoma is hostile (as allib87 said) to those who don't fit in to the super conservative norm. I was lucky to have liberal parents and go to a super liberal high school but I've been harassed for defending my gay friends and for being a liberal. I've also been guilty of not speaking up and I think, in part, that has to do with the overwhelming social environment that doesn't just discourage certain things but marks them as damnable offenses. Also, as allib87 said earlier, these groups are not religious-they're political and social.
All I can think of is David Cross.
"The south has a certain kind of ignorance that is deeper and truer, more unwavering and steadfast in ignorance than the rest of the country. Just for a lack of a better term...let's call it southern baptist."
I grew up in the South and faced this brand of Southern Baptist misogyny every day of my life (and still do when I am home or when I talk to my parents or my partner's.) I was raised in the Southern Baptist faith, which taught us that women should be subservient to men, need to be protected by men, should not try to tempt men, etc. My mother believes all of that bull shit - she maintains this view even though the man she is married to abused me. I was a Christian for a long time - until I was 17 years old. As I got older I realized more and more that Christianity only sought to put me, as a woman, in a place of servitude and submission for my entire life. It taught that my purpose was to find a man to serve and have his babies. And anyone who thinks Christianity can be liberal or progressive... well, I don't see how you can profess to a faith and also say "I challenge what this book (which is supposed to tell me what my faith means) teaches me." The Bible is blatantly misogynistic in many places - Old and New testaments. And I think that to admit that the Bible was only relevant to a certain culture and time is to admit that Christianity is obsolete today, and teaches values that are limiting humanity, rather than furthering it.
At the risk of sounding as though I am selling a religion - might I recommend those unhappy with traditional Christian churches check out the Unitarian Universalist church?
Pro-gay, pro-feminist, all-inclusive church that has an awesome comprehensive sex education program for both children and adults ...
And each sermon sounds more like a college lecture on social justice than anything else.
My family goes to a UU fellowship, for us it has been a amazing changed from the Catholic church. (We are mix faith. My dad is a deist, I' atheist, and my mother is Christian-ish) Sorry if this is derailing.
Marc -- I think the problem isn't so much the church as it is the culture. Oklahoma is incredibly conservative: the word "liberal" is in fact an insult down there. People will constantly "pitch their church" to their friends and acquaintances as a way of selling themselves up (ie "we're going to heaven because we're going to the only church that really gets it right!") People make other people's churches their business, and if you're going to a UU church, you might as well be announcing that you're an atheist, and then it's on... people in these circles compete for bragging rights for who gets to "save" the heathen from hell and bring them into the fold, and you paint a huge target on your back.
Whether mbmorgan is interested in even going to a church at this point is a decision that's in her own hands, but I agree that she should either go UU, or try to stick with one of the more staid liberal churches like Episcopalian or Lutheran. But whatever her decision is, she has to be ready to plant her feet and tell her friends, co-workers (fellow students?) and acquaintances that she's not interested in being their "project" anymore, and be ready to face some serious backlash.
I haven't read all of the comments, so I apologize if I'm rehashing. What you're describing is par for the course for an SBC service. There's nothing surprising about it since they've made their position crystal clear a number of times.
The only place I agree with what they've said as described here is that I do believed birth control decisions are for a couple to make together. My husband recently had a vasectomy, and I would've been devastated if he'd decided to do it without my knowledge. Having children is a major decision, and I don't think one spouse should make decisions on it without a discussion. Since Southern Baptists are vehemently opposed to premarital sex, the only birth control discussions ever happening would be between husband and wife.
That's all well and good Brandi, but I think you're being a bit facile on the issue.
The SBC does not believe that the decision is something that should happen as a discussion. They believe that the decision rests in the hands of the man, and the woman needs to get in line and follow him. If she doesn't want more children and he does, she submits to his wishes. If he doesn't want any more children, he goes out and gets a vasectomy and she has to deal.
Anyway, I'm not sure how all church's work, but I know that some churches in the south advocate, and have members who advocate this model of the household. What especially annoys me is that while telling women they should be subservient and leave church leadership to the men, they have no problem that it is mostly women who donate their time, money, and energy to the church. As a matter of fact, it is expected of the "good" church going women. So while telling women they are naturally subservient to men and that men are meant to be HOH and HOC, they have no problem sitting back and for the most part letting women do most of the fund raising, upkeep, child care, meal prep and serving,activity planning, volunteer coordinating, orientation of new members, and kid's Bible study. They want women to take leadership in all the things necessary to keep the Church functioning but God forbid they take leadership roles in the house or when it comes to Church doctrine or how to spend the money they raise.
I guess it makes perfect sense in a way when considering the household model some of them advocate is one that tends to say women should be in charge of keeping the house running and taking care of the children, but still manages to devalue that labor in relation to what a man is suppose to do.
If you don't want to hear Baptist ideas about morality, then what are you doing going to a Baptist church? I understand that trying to change things may give you some satisfaction, but I honestly see no point in keeping up the pretence of adhering to a philosophy that is anathema to everything you believe.