I’ll say it right out: I am a Christian, a liberal, and a feminist. This combination of beliefs and ideologies gives me an interesting perspective from which to observe current events and political rhetoric. Admittedly, my beliefs as a Christian do not alienate me from liberal communities quite as much as my liberal political and social views alienate me from many Christians. However, there are some aspects of feminist writing that are problematic, and even so insensitive as to disenfranchise some of the very people feminism aims to champion.
The reason I am posing this assertion with such bluntness is because I respect the intelligence and logical capabilities of the feminist blogosphere. Disagree with me if you want, but first, read with an open mind. Because, brace yourself, I’m about to talk about abstinence. And how even abstinence until marriage does not necessarily have to be anti-feminist or sex-negative.
There’s been a lot of discussion on the topic of virginity around here lately, and even more over at Bitch Magazine . Many of the awesome feminists around here have emphasized the idea that sometimes, not having sex can be as empowering, liberated, and feminist as having sex. These posts and comments have, however, continued to relegate religously-motivated abstinence to the category of dangerous, anti-feminist slut-shaming. It’s important to incorporate the knowledge that, in many churches and for many young Christian men and women, the concept of abstinence until marriage is anything but patriarchal.
Yes, the shaming of those who choose to have sex before marriage is unequivocally wrong. Yes, some churches and Christian organizations put the burden of remaining “pure” disproportionately on young women. Yes, some of the language that emphasizes the image of virginity as a “gift” that can only be given once, or as central to a young person’s self-worth is dangerous propaganda. And yes, abstinence-only education is a disaster. That being said, however, there is nothing inherently wrong with the way many churches approach the topic of abstinence, and there is nothing wrong with young women who decide not to have sex solely for religious reasons.
The first myth I’d like to debunk is the idea that, in abstinence culture, girls are regarded as the protectors of their own purity, and boys are portrayed as sex-crazed predators who are out to “ruin” sweet little Christian girls. Abstinence is approached by the church as the equal and shared responsibility of both genders, and female sexual desire is not shamed or ignored. In conservative Christian circles, men are expected to wait to have sex until they’re married just as much as women are. Female sexuality is acknowledged as every bit as powerful as male sexuality. Young couples are encouraged to mutually hold one another accountable.
On a related note, abstinence culture does not portray sex as dirty or shameful. It recognizes that people (including teenagers) are sexual beings. It emphasizes that sex, in the proper context, can be extremely pleasurable, fulfilling, and downright fun. Female pleasure is not downplayed or ignored. Married couples are not discouraged from telling teenagers that sex is great, nor are teenagers discouraged from being curious about it. The idea that Christians are running around telling teenage girls that their sexual desires are dirty and unnatural comes from a rather small minority of churches. They may be louder and therefore more visible than mainstream conservative Christian culture, but they do not represent the majority viewpoint, nor are they a good example of the messages that are really being given to Christian youth.
In fact, the similarities between the writings of feminists and those of abstinence culture are striking. Both emphasize sex as an important part of the human experience for those who desire it. Both emphasize mutual respect and consent between partners. And both, above all, emphasize that the ability to have good sex hangs on having the right to say “no” when sex isn’t desired. I am surprised that, in feminist spaces like Feministing and Bitch , where a woman’s desire to choose for herself when to have sex and when not to, the choice of many young Christians is dismissed as patriarchal and damaging.
The fact is simple: abstinence is a part of conservative Christian culture. Whether or not you share their beliefs, it would be anti-feminist to deny Christians’ own agency in choosing those beliefs for themselves. Consider this a call for a shift in attitude toward those young people who choose not to have sex for reasons related to Christianity. (The concept of pre-marital abstinence is also emphasized in some other religions, of course. However, because I am not so acquainted with the language used by the “abstinence culture” of other traditions, I feel it would be insensitive and ignorant for me to attempt to speak for them.)
The bottom line is that teenage and young-adult Christians have freely and independently chosen those beliefs. They are most certainly old enough to decide for themselves whether they would like to accept or reject the concept of religion. The young men and women who choose not to have sex because of Christian beliefs are not being oppressed, coerced, or stifled. They are merely taking control over their own bodies, and owning their right to say “no.” These same young people acknowledge their own sexuality, and, in most cases, go on to have sexually exciting and fulfilling marriages. Don’t pity them. Don’t defend them against the evils of the patriarchy. There are other issues to be concerned about without disenfranchising women and men who’ve made the decision to wait to have sex until marriage. All they’re doing, in the end, is taking responsibility for their own sexual decisions. And that is as feminist as it gets.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Christianity, Abstinence, and Feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16521
Good for you - sincerely. I think its great you've found a faith that you feel respects you and your choices. I had a little bit of a different experience with Christianity and abstinence, but it's nice to hear some churches are doing it right.
If they are choosing abstinence solely for religious reasons, that is not agency. That is fear of eternal damnation, or whatever punishment that a MALE God had proscribed for those who step off the reservation, for the sin of sex outside of marriage.
As an ex-Christian (Catholic to be more precise) I have tried to rationalize my way around this crap for a decade now. It doesn't work.
"If they are choosing abstinence solely for religious reasons, that is not agency."
Yes it is agency. Women can do whatever they want with their bodies for whatever reason. It's absurd and insulting to assume that people only have agency if they share your ideological views.
Well, they will just have to be insulted. Why we make certain decisions is just as important, perhaps more so, than the decision itself.
Christianity has a problem with any sex that is non-procreative? Period. How exactly is this ideology feminist? A woman can only have sex if she is willing to become a mother?...I must have been absent the day they taught that in women's studies ...I was probably out getting laid.
Only one Christian denomination condemns sex that is non-procreative. See below.
(I don't want this to degenerate into Catholic-bashing, I just want to point out that "abstinence culture" comes primarily from Protestants, who do not share that particular view of sex and reproduction.)
Evangelicals, Pentecostals and the Franciscan sects of the Catholic faith all have the same feelings on this matter. All the writings, lectures and everything that comes out of the Vatican is pretty clear on this issue. Non procreative sex is wrong. Some are more lenient if it is done within marriage, but they have a pretty clear consensus on these matters.
I don't know what Christian denomination you all are talking about, but this is what the conservative, larger organizations say and this is what they write. This is their official policy. I would love to see an official church document that veers away from this common "wisdom" but I haven't seen it yet.
The thing with the larger and more powerful Christian denominations is that they have these rich, powerful, politically connected governing bodies that tell the parishes what to do (The Vatican, Southern Baptist and so forth). They are bound by the leadership. Some protestant sects with no large governing body differ in doctrine from parish to parish. There is also an independent Catholic Church I believe. This is where I would imagine you might find more "liberal" parishioners and clergy. But these parishes have little power, money or national influence.
For the most part, doctrine is doctrine. No exceptions. Do not have sex unless you allow for the possibility of pregnancy as determined by God, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
This may not be news you want to hear, but that's the way it is.
Yes, you are absolutely right that that is Catholic doctrine. It is not, however, doctrine for any American Protestant denomination. (This includes Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, and many more). The rulings of the Vatican don't apply to any of these groups.
And, for what it's worth, I know a ton of Catholics who use birth control anyway.
Yes, you are absolutely right that that is Catholic doctrine. It is not, however, doctrine for any American Protestant denomination. (This includes Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, and many more). The rulings of the Vatican don't apply to any of these groups.
And, for what it's worth, I know a ton of Catholics who use birth control anyway.
no it does not. Just because your limited experience with the MOST oppressive form of Christianity does something a certain way doesn't mean every single church does. In fact, the overwhelming majority teach that sex is a natural part of your marriage and is created not only for the purposes of procreation but also as an expression of the love married couples have for each other. It may not take the form you may like it, but that doesn't mean that it states sex is only for procreation either.
I can't speak for all sects of christianity but I am a methodist and we are taught from very early on that sex is a mutually satisfying thing and that if God didn't want women to have pleasure during sex then he wouldn't have made it possible for women to have pleasure during sex. We are also taught that abstinence is what God wants for us, and we should therefore adhere to that. However, we are also taught that the church won't judge us for that decision not to remain abstinent, that that is God's job not theirs and therefore, they take no stance on the issue. It is also why they do not ever talk about whether LGBTQ is okay within christianity or not. I think that those of you who are not christians need to take the word of those of us who are on this kind of thing when we say that we are not oppressed by our religion or faith or relationship with Christ.
I feel this is just a sugarcoated version of the same old same and at the least ignores LGBT people.
"It emphasizes that sex, in the proper context, can be extremely pleasurable, fulfilling, and downright fun."
This is very vague. What is their idea of the "proper context?" Now correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the time their 'answer' tends to be "Reproduction!"
Next, you go on to say about how the culture DOESN'T-Slut shame, view sex as immoral and or any of the sort. Then even call it "empowering." If this true, then how does religion fit into this? Plus, how is it empowering? I'm really not seeing any empowerment here.
OP here.
Ha, yes, I could have mentioned the church's views on LGBT issues, but TRUST me, I wholly disagree with them. I talk about those issues over on the Christian message boards, trying to win over a few more allies. I already agree with mainstream feminist writing on that.
The "proper context" I was referring to (as in...the "proper context" according to mainstream Protestant churches) is marriage. Again, I'm not asking anyone to agree. It is up to each individual to make his/her own sexual decisions. My only goal, in this post, is to end the stigma surrounding those who choose to limit their sexual experience to marriage.
And as for the "reproduction" thing, that's really a Catholic thing. The conservative Christian mainstream in America these days is overwhelmingly Protestant. Protestants have no problem with birth control.
As for your last paragraph, I don't really understand the question. Could you clarify?
Please excuse the Catholic-centrism. My family is "liberal" Catholic. So thats all I know in way of Christianity.
I understand have and have no complaint/issues with someone who personally feels that they should wait until marriage/only have sex within marriage/committed partnership/civil union. While understanding that it means no then more or less then others. That is completely secular and can be empowering to some people. So where is the gods/religion there? Once religion gets involved, it becomes a pressured "choice" and a case of "morality." Which is not dis-empowering to a lot of people. I honestly don't think a church or religion can promote only abstinence without turning it into slut shaming and pressure.
You have some very valid points. And I won't try to deny that pressure does come into the discussion.
That being said, Christians don't tend to view Christianity as a religion so much as they see it as a lifestyle. You say that the decision to remain abstinent until marriage (or committed life partnership) can be empowering in a secular context, but when religion gets involved, the inherent pressure thereof impinges on that element of choice. I contend, however, that since religious beliefs are up to the personal choice of the individual in our culture, that choosing abstinence can be as much of a part of the decision to become (or stay) a Christian as the decision to get up early to go to church on Sundays. And, even more importantly, as the failure of abstinence-only education should show...people are going to do what they want when it comes to sex, even if the idea of abstinence is shoved down their throats. The people who succeed in making it to their wedding nights as virgins aren't doing it because their youth pastor told them it was a good idea 15 years earlier. They do it because they chose it.
I think most people view their religion as their lifestyle. You are supposed to practice what you preach after all. When did it suddenly become such a big thing to call Christianity a "lifestyle" or "relationship" instead of a religion? Is religion a bad word now? This relationship and lifestyle thing isn't a specific Christian thing.
I'm trying to understand your argument here. Were you making the point that abstinence programs aren't slut-shaming scare-tactic funfests or are you making the point that women shouldn't be ashamed for choosing abstinence? 'Cause I generally don't feel that feminists attack women for not having sex or for wanting to wait till marriage but instead get up in arms about people who try to shame women into making those choices. Just, I don't see what point you are trying to make here anymore. Yes it is possible to be Christian and feminist and be abstinent and feminist, but I didn't think that was a big issue here. The issue that arises most often here is that abstinence based education programs tend to focus heavily on shaming women for being sexual.
Also, I still totally want to know what churches you go to because I've been to many churches in my life and none of them seemed all happy and accepting of women's sexuality. Hell, my own mother thinks I'm going to hell because I've had sex.
And about the pastor thing, I was so ashamed and frightened of my sexual urges after going to church programs and such about sex and abstinence I probably would have never had sex out of fear of damnation if I had never gotten away from home and gone to college. Those kind of experiences at church can have a very strong effect on a young person and the message and fear can stay with them longer than most people think. So yeah, if a woman was a virgin on her wedding night it could very well be because of those scary messages she received at age 12 or 15. Young people are easily swayed especially if they don't get the chance, like I was lucky enough to have, to get out and hear new ways of thinking and understanding the world. Religion and hellfire and brimstone are very effective ways to control people's behaviors in general. *shrug*
You're very eager to put all Christians in one basket. The whole "it's a lifestyle, not a religion!" thing is something I rarely ever hear from the more liberal Christians at my dad's church (my dad's a pastor). It's more of an evangelical thing. It's not so much because they DON'T live Jesus's teachings (I think, in many respects, they do much more so than conservative Christians do) but I think it's because they aren't so much taken aback by the label "religion." I feel like the "it's not a religion!" argument is mainly a way for a lot of Christians to add a holier-than-thou attitude toward their beliefs, as though they are somehow "better" than Islam, Hinduism, etc, because those are merely "religions," while Christianity is "something more." (The impression I get, anyway.)
This. Pretty much exactly how I feel about that "not a religion" thing. :)
I've had sex outside of the "proper contexts" and I found it quite pleasurable and fulfilling, just saying. Abstinence is fine and dandy when a person chooses it themselves and are not forced into it through scare tactics and such. I don't know what literature you're reading or even what church you go to (I might even consider going back to church if I found one as open minded as what you're talking about) but every experience I have ever had with abstinence education was all fear driven, full of sob stories from women who had sex before marriage and regretted it and graphic STD pictures. There are always different people who will teach differently, but I have never seen otherwise. I'm with you being Christian and liberal and feminist. I feel you, there. It's tough. But while you can find a nice ideological balance between sex positive ideas and abstinence ideas, the basic truth I have seen is that abstinence programs are not sex positive in the least and do not tolerate teen sex. Which makes me think of the lady who ran the one abstinence program my parents put me in and the down right dirty look she gave me when she noticed the ring around my neck and thought it was a boyfriend's. It was the ring my parents gave me for my 13th birthday which I have to wear around my neck because I am allergic to metal. She just THOUGHT that I had had sex before marriage and she gave me that look. More power to you, honestly, and I do not look down on people for choosing abstinence just like how I do not look down on people who choose to have more adventurous sex lives than me, but the groups who actively pushed for abstinence do not care about a woman's choice but care more about shoving their morals down a woman's throat and forcing women to do what they want women to do. Again, based on my own lived experiences and observations.
I think what you were getting at is the women have a right to do whatever they want with their sexuality, be it have sex or wait, and that in itself is feminist. But I would never call an abstinence only group feminist.
If they are not portraying sex as dirty or shameful, what's the point in conservative Christian culture encouraging abstinence before marriage? It has to be a part of the culture for a reason, if it had no political or spiritual efficacy no one would care enough to encourage it. That reason tends to be purity, and that is disturbing. If it's something other than purity, I'd be interested to know what that is.
Also, I take issue with the whole thing about abstinence emphasizing 'that the ability to have good sex hangs on having the right to say “no” when sex isn’t desired.' I've been meaning to write a community post about this for ages, but I might as well share my ideas here: No, abstinence-before-marriage actually does the EXACT OPPOSITE of teaching us that we have the right to say 'no'. It teaches us that we must say no UNTIL A CERTAIN DATE (our wedding day), but from that date, we are supposed to say yes at least at some point. The expectation is that once we are married, we will have sex, and we will have sex with a certain person.
I'd rather subscribe to the idea that it's always one's right to say no, no matter what the situation, and if I was to have kids, I would certainly want to teach them the same.
"It teaches us that we must say no UNTIL A CERTAIN DATE (our wedding day), but from that date, we are supposed to say yes at least at some point."
Very good point. A lot of christian organizations teach kids that they must abstain until marriage but that once they are married, sex will be this beautiful, pleasurable, transcendent experience. But for one of my conservative, Christian friends her wedding night was a horrible experience because she was nervous, in pain, and felt unable to say 'no' because it was her wedding night and in her mind that meant that sex was a given. She had never had any sexual contact and expected to suddenly be able to go from 0 to 60 with no experience. It was really sad to hear her tell me about this.
I just wanted to point out that although i know teenagers are old enough to decide for themsleve what their religious beliefs are a lot of them are not in a good position to be open about them if they have decided theor views are not the same as their parents.
It can be a very difficult situation to come out to your family as feeling differently about this sort of thing, and is definately more complicated when one's parents have almost complete control over you, as they do when you are under a certain age.
Although i think a lot have 'freely and independently chosen their beliefs' there are other possibilities out there.
Yeah, not sure where i was really going with that but its certainly something i've seen that people tend to ignore...
"The first myth I’d like to debunk is the idea that, in abstinence culture, girls are regarded as the protectors of their own purity, and boys are portrayed as sex-crazed predators who are out to “ruin” sweet little Christian girls."
You talking about abstinence culture, or culture at large? Having heard the age-old "I trust you--it's them I don't trust" from my atheist/agnostic father, I'm leaning towards the latter.
I agree with most of the comments on here stating that in most of the christian sects, abstinence is actually forced on people (particularly women) instead of people actually being able to rationally choose for themselves. The people I know who say "I don't want to have sex until marriage because it's what I want to do" and are all still part of a Christian denomination and so forgive me if I am skeptical that they are sincere in them choosing to be abstinent themselves. I have no problem stating that christianity (as well as other religions) loves to oppress women otherwise, why would they not think about what it was they were doing in terms of shaming and devaluing women? And this is why I, like so many others, left my religion because I cannot find any way to combine my feminist beliefs with those of the beliefs I once had, and for the people who try to rationalize both...well, good for you but I don't think it is actually possible to do so until christianity has an entire overhaul.
I would like to make a comment based on these two statements by you:
"The fact is simple: abstinence is a part of conservative Christian culture. Whether or not you share their beliefs, it would be anti-feminist to deny Christians’ own agency in choosing those beliefs for themselves."
(I included the second statement because I think its patently false, simply because calling a religion sexist for its beliefs is not sexist in itself)
and
"The first myth I’d like to debunk is the idea that, in abstinence culture, girls are regarded as the protectors of their own purity, and boys are portrayed as sex-crazed predators who are out to “ruin” sweet little Christian girls. Abstinence is approached by the church as the equal and shared responsibility of both genders, and female sexual desire is not shamed or ignored. In conservative Christian circles, men are expected to wait to have sex until they’re married just as much as women are. Female sexuality is acknowledged as every bit as powerful as male sexuality. Young couples are encouraged to mutually hold one another accountable."
I assume that, for you, conservative Christianity= traditional Christianity?
Now, traditionally, Christianity has always been sexist. Traditional Christianity is sexist Christianity.
Let me see if I can find them... No, I can't. Used to have a wealth of quotes from Christians before 300 AD or so and their misogynistic teachings. One fellow- wish I could remember his name and the writing from whence it came- wrote that a man MUST leave his wife if she commits adultery, but a woman MAY leave her husband if he commits adultery, and- get this- MUST take him back, no matter what, if he decides to get back with her again.
Sexist? Mebbe?
There are others, which I have, of course, forgotten.
And then there's the bible- lovely!
The bible's implicit acceptance of male sexual expression and disapproval of female sexual expression is the Jewish test for a woman's purity at a marriage- the blood-stained bedsheets.
[Side note, to God: God, I am disappoint. Is this Bible really from you? If so, why did you put in this bit about using a completely flawed test (flawed both ways; accurate in determining neither virginity nor lack thereof) to determine a woman's virginity? Why didn't you say anything about a man's virginity?]
Oh, and wasn't there some bits about a man raping a woman, and paying off her family in order to marry her? (Cause no one wants a non-virgin [woman] except a rapist! Lol, he deserves that eh)
And St Paul saying women can't speak in churches, but instead talk to their husbands later, because 1) women should be seen, not heard; men should be heard, not looked at 2) men have better judgement/knowledge/etc then women and 3) a husband has moral authority over his wife.
And all those conservative things about calling God a "he" when spirits obviously cannot have a physical characteristic like genders (sorry, nephilim, yall don't exist).
Just wondering.
I do- of course- agree that abstaining from marriage is unrelated to sexism. I don't believe orthodox Christianity is unrelated to sexism though.
Oh, back in the day, virginity was totally the path of independence. Because back in the day your job, whether you were male or female, was to get married and have a family. By becoming a virgin and a religious person, you didn't have to deal with that responsiblity.
For example, Joan of Arc couldn't have been Joan of Arc if she was married and pregnant and had to take care of 5 kids.
Unfortunately, the Christian church doesn't really talk about that when they talk about abstinence.
One of the problems I have with abstinence before marriage is that it assumes marriage. These days, people have a choice to get married or not. It assumes that I'll meet someone I want to marry...sometimes that doesn't happen.
Eh well, men could be independent while married too.
Not women, of course, since they had to be taking care of the children and being domestic.
That's the reason why most "renowned" women of the Church were virgins: St Theresa of Avila, Mary (widowed), St Scholastica, etc.
Agree with your last paragraph totally!
Sure, they had more freedom, but St. Francis of Assisi (sp?) couldn't have been St. Francis if I had to take care of a wife and kids.
Plus, women were the devil anyway, an obstacle to spiritual enlightment. Better to just remove the temptation, apparently.
I am really sick of Feministing posters asserting that Christian feminists' lived experiences are wrong. It is no better than denying a trans woman's lived experience, or denying a queer woman's lived experience. When Christian feminists say that OUR FAITH AND OUR FEMINISM DO NOT CONFLICT, and, for me at least, feminism is part of my faith, and vice versa, I really wish Feministing posters would not assume that I am wrong.
I know what I'm talking about. I was raised in the church (sometimes literally IN the church, ha). I expect my background is more liberal than the OP's. My father is a Methodist minister; my grandfather and grandmother were also Methodist ministers. They all are/were feminists; they all do/did support me as a gay woman, etc, etc.
Now, it is true that the central governing bodies of many denominations have anti-feminist rules. I'm thinking of Catholicism and Southern Baptists. In the case of Methodism, I know of no rules or practices that are sexist. Women can be ordained, and women's sexuality is celebrated. So there are two important points there: one, the governing body does not equal the local church or the individual believer, and two, all denominations are not alike. In fact, of course, many denominations are divided over controversial issues; e.g. the Anglican church over ordaining GLBT clergy. So all Christians/denominations/churches are not alike. REMEMBER THAT. The blanket statements are no more okay for Christians than they are for GLBT people.
Next point: historical Christianity as sexist. Of course 300 CE Christians were sexist. EVERYBODY in 300 CE was sexist. More conservative Christians might not agree with me, but I believe firmly that the church (as a worldly institution) is not always right. Furthermore (and even more Christians would differ from me here, but more would agree than you'd think) the Bible is a set of documents with a historical context. The people who wrote it were living in a specific historical context. Now, I still believe that it is divinely inspired and the best source for learning how to live my religion, but that doesn't mean I swallow it hook, line, and sinker. For one thing, the Bible contradicts itself, so you literally CAN'T believe it literally without believing contradictions.
Last point: re: feminism in the Bible again. The Bible can not only coexist with feminism, but in fact informs and supports many Christian feminists' beliefs. The Bible is consistently, overarchingly, primarily (in my and other liberal Christians' opinion) about lifting up the downtrodden and creating spiritual and economic equality for all.
But the most important thing is that it is just not okay to assume you know more about Christianity and feminism than the people who are living it. Maybe the two contradict for you, maybe it didn't work out in your experience, but if it is important to another woman, you can't discount her experience. It is anti-feminist.
I don't know if people here are denying your lived experiences, I think we're questioning a powerful current in our culture. Cultural critiques are not anti-feminist, even if women happen to disagree or have other lived experiences.
One key thing here is that Christians often seem to forget that their lived experiences are not the only ones that matter when it comes to Christianity. Many people were raised Christian, even if they don't identify that way now. Many, myself included, still have Christianity factor in as a major part of their everyday existence. (In my case, both my sister and brother-in-law are priests. I also study religion, although it's not my main subject area). Christianity has very much defined my life, even though I don't think of myself as Christian.
This, I would argue, leaves me and people in similar positions perfectly qualified to talk about and critique Christianity. If you want to draw comparisons, if a person was straight but was raised by gay parents and had gay siblings, I would feel they had a right to talk about gay issues. Although such comparisons don't work too well, as that's missing the whole dominance-and-power angle.
You're totally right. I'm not saying people like you shouldn't critique aspects of the Christian cultures they are familiar with. However, the plural on cultures is key here. What I object to is the idea of, "I had this bad experience so other feminists with good experiences of Christianity must be wrong."
But I agree completely about cultural critique. I obviously disagree very strongly with aspects of American Christianity in general, and with my denomination in particular (Methodist) on the subject of queer issues.
Yes, I would never for a moment think that all Christianity is the same (as a friend of mine once put it, "there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, and the only thing they all agree on is that Jesus was a kinda cool guy." that, of course, doesn't even take into account all the individual differences within denominations...)
There are some very awesome theologies out there, and there are Christians doing some very important work transforming their world and their religion. I just get irritated at the defensive tone so many Christians take on forums like this, especially when people start comparing their experiences as Christians (a dominant group with more power than anyone would know what to do with) to gay people, trans people, or any other actually oppressed group. I think the uninformed hatred of Christianity that comes out from some Feministing readers is awful, and would make anyone defensive, but it's very important to not fall back on the 'it's my choice so you better respect it and stop questioning' argument when we're dealing with such powerful institutions as Christianity.
Thank you, this is a really helpful comment. In particular, I appreciate your speaking so respectfully and kindly of Christians doing good work.
I agree that "choice" isn't an end all defense for Christianity. I guess I am more arguing that Person A's experience of the church as bad doesn't invalidate Person B's experience of Christianity as good. They can both be true, and Person B isn't sexist just because she supports a faith Person A has found to be sexist in her experience. And I totally agree that professing Christian faith doesn't foreclose anyone's right to criticize aspects of Christianity.
Of course you're totally right about the power dynamics of Christianity vs. minority groups. I know I said (or at least I think I did, I've written like 5 novels on this thread) that Feministing posters would never discount queer experiences the way they sometimes do Christian experiences. I was merely trying to make a point about the universal validity (as far as that goes) of lived experience, not that Christians are oppressed on this board like queer people are in life. Christians are certainly not oppressed. However, in liberal circles, we do sometimes encounter an intolerance which is tolerated in a way that intolerance of other groups never would be. This stems in large part from the church's abuse of power in a variety of arenas, but it is still frustrating, and I want to counter it because I really think that Christians and progressives (and Christian progressives) should be working together.
It is not anti-feminist to discount what a woman says- thats called disagreeing with her. Discounting what she says because she is a woman is sexist, discounting what she says because you think she is wrong is disagreeing and having a different opinion. Taking into consideration that this IS a feminist website and that, accordingly, most of those here are feminists, its rather doubtful that those who disagree are disagreeing from a sexist standpoint.
I disagree. I think discounting anyone's lived experience, for whatever reason, is anti-feminist, because feminism should support individual dignity. And discounting experience is not the same as disagreeing. Discounting experience = You're wrong, all Christians are sexist (when I've told you that that is not my experience). Disagreeing = Well, maybe that's your experience, but in my experience, most Christians are sexist. One assumes that the lived experience itself (Christians I know aren't sexist) is wrong, the other assumes that the argument resulting therefrom (Christianity is not necessarily a sexist institution) is wrong. So feel free to disagree, but don't tell me that I didn't live what I lived. (I'm not addressing you specifically, just your argument about disagreeing and discounting experience).
Duh, you were talking about discounting opinions, not lived experience. Sorry! I still wouldn't say "discount" because to me it sounds dismissive, and I don't like to be dismissive of any considered argument, but that's semantics.
"I disagree. I think discounting anyone's lived experience, for whatever reason, is anti-feminist, because feminism should support individual dignity."
No, FEMINISTS should support individual dignity (everybody should). FEMINISM (as far as I know) is the belief that women are equal to men.
Its sort of like saying Young Earth Creationism (or whatever, I just pulled that out randomly) should support individual dignity; well YEC is related to the Bible, not individual dignity, just like feminism is about the existence of misogynism, not individual dignity.
If you know what I mean.
Re the rest of your post:
I don't want to get into a discussion about the nature of truth (yes! yes!) but truth isn't subjective (or at least we have to assume it isn't).
So I don't remember what I was talking about, experiences or not, but I don't think that experiences hold any weight anyways so its ok.
But as I was saying about truth being subjective- since we have to assume it isn't in order to discuss anything, and since we are discussing something, I am not going to be able to hold any truth to your experiences (or mine for that matter- I do not value my experiences as showing truth). I think its more "argument" and logic to find truth.
I have a feeling I am rambling and am making no sense. But anyways, I am submitting my judgement on Christianity from the standpoint of someone who has done amateur study on the early Christian church and found it extremely sexist in nature. I really do not place any value on experiences. And I mean no offense, after all, I do not value my own; its just that with the subjective nature of experiences, they really are no use when talking about truth.
You're right about feminists, not feminism, supporting individual dignity. Duh.
I think objective truth is pretty sticky. Experiences are subjective, of course, but I don't really see how you can look at certain issues without them, i.e. can modern feminists be Christians? Well, I think we'd have to ask some feminist Christians about their experiences to determine that, wouldn't we? We could ignore their experiences, but that seems both invalidating and unproductive, since part of understanding a phenomenon like that is consulting the people who experience it. I mean, would you try to understand queer issues without consulting queer people about their experiences? (I say this as a queer person).
Experience can't tell us everything, but it's pretty important, since it's how we learn and form opinions most of the time. And when considering a group of people, we have to consider their experiences; they aren't just scientific test subjects. I can't declare, "Queer people are against nature!" because I've reasoned it out, conducted studies, etc, and come to that conclusion. I have to consult the experiences of real live queer people. Ironically, conservative Christians try to buttress their beliefs about homosexuality with reason, because experience doesn't help them; experience of gay people usually makes people more tolerant, not less (see PFLAG).
Of course the early church was sexist, but I'm not sure how that relates to modern Christianity. Like I said before, everyone in 300 CE was sexist. Or most everyone.
It's not that parts of Christianity and the church aren't sexist, it's that when making blanket statements about Christianity and sexism, I think it is prudent and respectful to consider the experiences of feminist Christians.
And I don't really agree about the experiences.
See, my view (duh, whose else's am I going to be arguing from) is that truth/trueness is not subjective. If truth/trueness were subjective, then there would be nothing to base any beliefs off, so one may as well assume its objectivity.
When you have an experience, you encounter it with an already biased mind (its unavoidable; your beliefs will always affect everything unfortunately). What sticks out will therefore usually be connected in some way with your previous opinions. Later, when you think about it, what you want to become enlarged will become enlarged, and what you don't want to see will become less in your mind. Eventually, through your own interpretation, wishes about what happened, and beliefs, you will arrive at an event which is heavily distorted.
As an example: a cousin of mine got dumped by her boyfriend a while ago. She is a very busy, hardworking, independent woman; he was very clingy and insecure (and probably uncomfortable with her intelligence and impressive career). Eventually he called it quits on the basis that he couldn't live with his constant fear of her breaking up with him. Accordingly, we both were pretty impressed with his blatant lack of logic. He went from being illogical to stupid though, and, gradually, is now a complete asshole and douchebag.
Was he a douchebag? No, he was illogical, nothing more. He was actually quite a sweet guy. But my respect for my cousin and consequent lack of respect for him, and her irritation at him followed by despising him caused us both to go from seeing his action as we should have, to seeing it as we "wanted" to.
Thus the person that cut us off this morning goes from being a worried person in a rush to an irritation to that stuck-up asshole we tell our friends about.
That was rather drawn out, but you get my point? You probably have a similar experience you can think of. Anyways, the very drawn out point was that pretty much everything that happens becomes distorted in our minds. We won't ever be any objective video cameras, recording things as they happened, but instead subjective viewpoints.
Which is a very very long way of saying, experiences are subjective. Now it wouldn't matter if that was all we had (and if this thread was solely about the legitimacy of CPC's, it WOULD be irrelevant; but this is the internets, and it seems to have disintegrated into pro-life v pro-choice), but its not. We also have logic.
So in choosing pro-life or pro-choice or any combination/middle ground, would you rather take experiences (which are subjective and therefore not true) or logic (which, if not flawed, is objective)?
I think I may have actually expressed myself coherently here. I hope so anyways.
I don't agree that logic is objective... but more importantly, I think you're on the wrong thread! This one's about Christian abstinence. I'm pro choice, for what it's worth.
My mind was in the wrong thread. Please ignore the comment about CPCs.
I get your point about experiences relative to abortion rights. But that's a question of my experience (hypothetically; I have no actual experience with anything abortion related) governing your rights. I say, I've experienced this bad thing with abortion! So you shouldn't have one either. And then you have less rights. My experience curtails your rights. That's not considering individual experience, that's using your own subjective experience to dictate someone else's.
But when considering how something works for individuals (e.g. can a feminist be a Christian?) you have to consult the experiences of the individuals in question. Individual experiences ARE the phenomenon you're considering.
Also, there's a long history of people using logic in abusive ways to disprove people's experiences. E.g., conservative Christians (as I mentioned above) using their logic of what's "natural" to invalidate the experiences of queer people. Or, feminists arguing that a trans woman wasn't really born a woman so she can't know if she is one. Both arguments use logic (both are pretty logical, for what it's worth. And very, very wrong.) but they both fail, because they don't take into account individual experience. They say, in essence, "You don't exist. Your experiences don't count. Your life isn't what you think it is."
Now, I am not comparing the treatment of Christians on this thread to the treatment of queer people generally. I am a queer person, and I do know from prejudice. But I will say, that when people make blanket statements that feminists cannot be Christian and vice versa (they don't say this exactly, but it's implied in a variety of ways) then they essentially say that I haven't actually lived the life I have lived, and that I am wrong about my own experience. And I really resent that.
As far as gay rights go (and, just before I go on, I am both a supporter and not straight; I might possibly come off as not being a supporter somehow, but thats just because I try to be as honest and blunt as possible to make my ramblings less incoherent), I think its a little different.
Lets take Christians A and B, both conservatives and opposers of gay rights. Christian A opposes gay rights because of the Bible. Christian B, however, takes his experience of his gay cousin or whatever who, after years of guilt before the Lawd (or some other bs), "changes" into a straight person who is now happily married and goes around preaching about his experience.
Now you might say to Christian A, why don't you look at gay people's experiences?, but what can you say to Christian B? In their mind, they already have looked at gay people's experiences.
Now that might be a problem, right? As someone who was almost coerced some years back to going to Courage in exchange for psychiatric help by the parents, I can tell you there are ALOT of people who claim they "used to be gay" and were "changed by Jesus" and are now straight and sinless. Courage is just one popular organization for forcing gay people into "straightness".
So, as I said earlier before backtracking needlessly, what are you going to do?
But there are other arguments. To Christian A, you could say, but look at this-- and start debating the Bible. And you can do the exact same to Christian B; use logical argument to convince them that experiences aren't a source of truth, and then show them how, logically, there is nothing wrong with gay people.
This might be harder (and much more intense, I tell you) than just submitting experiences to them. The resulting logical foundation is much stronger though, and also logical argument can be used on everyone (except those who do not listen to logic; but what can be done on them anyways).
I'm not trying to knock gay experiences or anything. I just think they are an ineffective way to tell people the truth, especially when you come upon people who believe what they believe because of opposite experiences.
Okay, I get what you're saying. Experience as a data set can be corrupted no less than logic can. But I really think you a) overestimate the power of logic (or underestimate its power for abuse) and b) underestimate the political significance of experience. Experience has always been a key to progressive movements. By recognizing experiences, we essentially legitimate the person having the experience. We read Phyllis Wheatley's slave narrative, and thus say "You are a person." It's pretty powerful stuff, so don't discount it as an arguing/activism tool. Anyway, I recognize the validity of your points, so perhaps now we should agree to disagree :)
Sorry, one other thing. Someone asked about a feminist reason for religion based abstinence. In my mind, it's about honoring the gift (sexuality and sexual pleasure) God has given you by using it in a relationship which enhances your Christianity and glorifies God. The belief is that a mutually supportive and satisfying relationship between people glorifies God by bringing out the best of human nature and helping the people involved be the best they can be.
Since God is present in everything, we must have sex in a way that honors our commitment to God. Sex honors God when it is used to build loving human relationships, which are one of the most important ways we glorify God and show our Christian nature. Sexuality is part of God's creation and a gift to us, so we must be good stewards of it and consider how our use of that gift builds our faith/life and honors God. It's not so much sex outside of marriage = impure, it's that sex is a gift, and we must consider how best to use it and how its use might affect our faith.
Now, obviously, I've written this in a way that privileges a relationship paradigm (I sort of didn't even know I believed all this until I tried to write it down). However, I do believe that there is room for many kinds of relationships within the context of honoring your sexuality. A lot of it would be based on whether or not the two people are respectful of each other, and how each of them feels about it.
I also want to push back against the idea that religion as a factor in making a decision about sex automatically means no autonomy. We make decisions for all kinds of reasons. Personal desire, upbringing, political outlook, theoretical outlook, social context, etc. Everyone has a framework which structures their decisions. Religion just happens to give that framework a name (although no Christian is so perfect that all of their decisions are made under that rubric.) Having a reason for a decision doesn't mean it isn't your decision. The alternative suggests that we can only make decisions based on spur of the moment gut instinct, which surely is not what feminism is about.
This is a very interesting viewpoint, but I'd like to ask a bit of clarification if that's alright.
I certainly understand the viewpoint that you* are honoring god when you use sex as a means of building a loving relationship, specifically a marriage. But I'm failing to see how one can dissociate christian views of abstinence from ideas about purity.
Does having sex before marriage mean that sex with one's future spouse will no longer allow you to build your faith and glorify god? If sex outside of marriage does not make you impure or immoral, then won't sex with your spouse still allow you to honor god's gift, regardless of whether you happen to have had sex previously?
If sex is a gift that must be used within a marriage, then does it not logically follow that sex outside of marriage is impure or immoral in some way because you are not being a good steward of the gift that god has given you?
Of course anyone should be able to wait to have sex until they're ready, and if religious considerations are a major part of that decision then that is fine. However, I still believe that we can be critical of the reasons why religious doctrine tends to promote abstinence. And the idea of purity and control of women's reproductive choices is a major part of many religious teachings.
*I'm using "you" in the general sense throughout this post. I'm not trying to probe into your sex life or anything.
Treating it as a "gift" god gives you treats sex like a commodity rather than an act, and its something that can be taken away and once you've given it away, you're stained forever. Even in Buddhism my teachers had that idea and it KILLED me when I broke up with my first boyfriend because I thought I was less of a person now that I "gave" away my virginity to someone who left me.
Replying to both Marie and ShyMox here...
Okay, I should emphasize that I'm only answering for my understanding of Christianity.
I would say that sex outside of marriage could honor God if both parties respect each other, are considerate, and consider that sex as compatible with their faith. I would say that sex before marriage definitely does not affect sex in marriage, for a number of reasons. Christianity is big on forgiveness, but to put it in a more nuanced light, it is also about new beginnings. So any relationship, if carried out in a spirit of love and respect, can honor God. I'm sort of just coming to this conclusion now, but I think this line of thinking is why I'm actually more comfortable with the idea of polyamory than with casual anonymous sex. But at any rate, I think either situation could theoretically follow my hypothetical requirements for honoring God.
I get what you're saying about impurity relative to bad stewardship. I think for me, that's why respect and your own personal feelings are so important. If it doesn't conflict with your relationship with God, and you are honoring the other person(s) as a child of God, then it shouldn't be a problem. Abstinence comes in only if you feel that's the best way for you to honor God.
Disassociating purity from Christian abstinence is tricky. I think part of my problem with it is that I actually was never raised to think a lot about purity (it's not part of the rhetoric where I'm from) so I don't know how to explain how I think. But I would say that I think in terms of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who talked about each day being a new opportunity. In that scenario, you can't be impure because you always have a new chance to be the best person you can be. If you regret a sexual decision one day (not because sex is bad, but because it was bad for you or for your partner(s)) you can be better the next. Also, I think in terms of grace. We're all sinful, but God loves us anyway. So purity, which is kind of a before/after clean/unclean kinda deal, doesn't really figure in to my thinking, because we are all impure if you want to get down to it, but we also reflect the divine. Sexuality is no different; it can be divine (pun intended) but it can also reflect humanity's sinful nature (not because it's premarital but if it doesn't honor God/partner(s)).
I don't like the idea that abstinence equals unreadiness. Saying the only reason someone should abstain is that they aren't ready makes abstinent people out to be immature. Abstinence can be a moral or personal choice without readiness being a factor.
Regarding the idea of a gift... The way I am using gift is different from the way abstinence only people use it. Commonly in Christian parlance, we talk about gifts from God. Things like beauty in nature, new life, relationships, and talents are all called gifts from God. The important thing about all these gifts is that they can't be taken away from you. In this light, a sexual relationship that ends can still be a gift from God if you view it in that light, i.e. a beautiful thing that you treasure and that is an important part of your life.
I want to reemphasize that I'm only speaking for myself. I think I've departed from mainstream liberal Christianity a bit here. But I do think that thinking in terms of treating your partner and yourself in a Christian manner, rather than in terms of purity/impurity, can be helpful when considering Christian abstinence. Purity/impurity as we're discussing it really isn't terribly Christian from my perspective, because it tends to be a one way street... and Christianity is about a journey, which will always involve missteps but also growth.
"I would say that sex outside of marriage could honor God if both parties respect each other, are considerate, and consider that sex as compatible with their faith."
If that's the case, what does this have to do with abstinence? It sounds to me like you're basically saying here 'loving, respectful sex that builds relationships with other people is fine, and if that entails being abstinent, then that's fine too.'
Which is not too different than what most feminists would say, except that there could be some debate about how much that applies to one-night stands. But it doesn't sound to me like abstinence, which, from what I understand, involves encouraging abstinence as the only or at least the best path. Otherwise it wouldn't be described as 'abstinence before marriage'...
You're right that my beliefs aren't specifically about abstinence. For premarital abstinence, it requires the belief that sex within marriage is the best or only way to build a relationship and honor God. I don't really believe that's true, but am trying to figure out where I come down in terms of casual sex. I guess I would go back to the ideas of respect, consent, generosity, etc, which are, as you say, feminist, but I think also Christian in terms of the Golden Rule.
Materialtruth, thanks for laying this out so eloquently. I second everything you've said.
Another clarification which I shied away from including in the original post is the ironic fact that the concept of abstinence until marriage doesn't come from the Bible (well, not the New Testament, which is the basis of Christian faith, anyway.) Those who argue that waiting until marriage is a Biblical concept hang their argument on a certain interpretation of the highly ambiguous Greek word "porneia."
People who use scare tactics such as "the Bible condemns premarital sex and you'll go to hell if you do it" are either misinformed or just plain manipulative.
That being said, even through premarital abstinence is not actually a Biblical concept, it has been church tradition from the beginning. The reasons why people still adhere to the tradition are as varied as the people who make that choice.
"In my mind, it's about honoring the gift (sexuality and sexual pleasure) God has given you by using it in a relationship which enhances your Christianity and glorifies God. The belief is that a mutually supportive and satisfying relationship between people glorifies God by bringing out the best of human nature and helping the people involved be the best they can be."
How exactly is this a feminist statement?
"Since God is present in everything, we must have sex in a way that honors our commitment to God."
Same question.
"Sexuality is part of God's creation and a gift to us, so we must be good stewards of it and consider how our use of that gift builds our faith/life and honors God. It's not so much sex outside of marriage = impure, it's that sex is a gift, and we must consider how best to use it and how its use might affect our faith."
Same question.
"Having a reason for a decision doesn't mean it isn't your decision."
No, but if your reason for not doing something is because it does not honor God, well sorry, that may be acceptable to you, but I wouldn't exactly call it feminist. You are following the rules set forth by a male deity in the context of a belief structure that is fundamentally sexist.
If you want to say that Christianity is sexist, but that you think it should be an important part of your life anyway and you are going to ignore it's sexist nature and focus on the positive aspects, fine. I think there is a lot of stuff to ignore and the intellectual contortionist that a person would have to become in order to keep that up would seem exhausting to me...but fine. But to deny that Christianity is sexist at its core makes you an enabler.
I think being the best you can be (cheesy though it is) IS a feminist statement. But see below for more.
Taxgirl1: You're right that not all of my beliefs are based on feminism. For me, I try to have Christianity come first. Feminism is only one aspect (although if you consider intersectionality, feminism can be more broadly applied).
Key point about liberal Christians: God is NOT, absolutely NOT, a male deity. God is for me the ground of all being. God is not a little human sitting in the sky. Think Holy Spirit, not Renaissance Old Dude painted on the ceiling. Although God is "Father" in some discourses, God is described many other ways: as the great I AM, which is genderless, and also in feminine ways sometimes. This is another case where our concept of Christianity comes more from tradition than from the Bible. You'd be hard pressed to find a liberal Christian (Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, etc) who believes God is a dude. So that argument for the sexism of Christianity fails.
I am not engaging in mental contortions. Christianity and feminism don't coexist for me, they inform and support each other.
How can they possibly support each other? The first story in the Bible blames women for the downfall of all mankind? It's sexist from the start and is consistently so throughout.
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" (Ephesians 5:22,23).
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
"And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Genesis 3:16
If Christianity is not based on the Bible, what is it based on? The arbitrary whims of people who want to rationalize away the parts of Christianity that they don't like for their own comfort?
"This is another case where our concept of Christianity comes more from tradition than from the Bible."
The aforementioned passages: they are the tradition. The "tradition" was based on them.
Paul was a misogynistic bastard. Every one of your New Testament passages was written by him. And materialtruth already pointed out that it's actually impossible to interpret the whole Bible literally, because of its internal contradictions.
Are there any statements in seminal feminist literature with which you disagree? Then accept that it is possible to subscribe to a larger set of beliefs without accepting everything (right or wrong) written on the subject.
Of course there are some things in feminism that I disagree with, but they are not fundamental points. When so many fundamental aspects of religion are sexist at their core, I don't get how people can ignore that.
Anyway, whatever...I should have remembered some good advice given to me once: Never argue with a drunk, a fool or a religious person.
Never argue with a fool, drunk, or religious person? I, personally, am an atheist, was raised atheist, and may never find religion as important to my being. And, I find this comment to be completely disrespectful.
TaxGirl1: I would appreciate it if you would consider all of my points and refrain from personal attack.
None of the passages you cite are fundamental or core to Christianity. Core of Christian belief: Love your God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength (or such like); and love your neighbor as yourself. This is what Jesus said was the greatest commandment. Jewish tradition dictates the first part of that as their greatest commandment, the Sh'ma (sorry if I've spelled that wrong.)
Your passages are from a very limited portion of the Bible: either a) part of the Genesis creation story, or b) part of letters written by Paul/Paul's ghostwriters which were written IN REACTION TO A SPECIFIC CONTEXT. Early Christians were trying to carve out a place for the early church, and they screwed up. Just like every other person at the time, they were sexist. Several of those quotes aren't by Paul, by the way. His ghostwriters were worse. So yes, the tradition has roots in the Bible, but it's in the Bible because it was in the culture AT THE TIME, not because it is a fundamental part of the Bible. Saying sexism is fundamental to Christianity is like saying transphobia is fundamental to feminism (sorry, very rough comparison); each prejudice has existed in the two institutions respectively because it exists in the culture and hasn't/hadn't been rethought yet - although it's key to note that both the Bible and feminism contain the seeds for rethinking prejudice in all forms.
You're right that the creation story is sexist. However, it is not the "start" of the Bible in a narrative sense. The Bible is cobbled together from a variety of texts. So you can't see Genesis as the "introduction" in a way that posits a teleological narrative.
I do not rationalize parts of the Bible away for my own comfort. I read it in a historicized light, for what it is: a collection of texts, divinely inspired (for me at least) but written by humans, in a specific time and place. I try to understand how it might apply to my life and what the important parts are.
Christianity is based on the Bible. But you can't cite verses in isolation (just like you can't cite transphobia as the reason feminism is bad): verses as we know them were added much later on. I look at the overarching themes: faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love. Economic equality is the overarching theme of the parables as of the early Hebrew prophets. Feminism and Christianity support each other because they are both about individual dignity, cooperative effort, equality, and justice. See parables and passages about love, mercy, justice, etc.
Re: whims, Methodists subscribe to what is called the Wesleyan quadrilateral: We look at the Bible, church tradition, reason, and our own experience, and try to come up with a solution.
Melissa, I'm glad you like my points! Perhaps we should chat about feminist Christianity some time.
Your whole transphobia analogy...Didn't really get where you were going with that, but, moving on.
I was not personally attacking you. I am simply saying that arguing with religious people is pointless because you never get anywhere. When you have a conversation with a person who bases their ideology on something that you do not believe exists, arguing with them is pointless. You are never going to question your faith and I am never going to believe in the supernatural.
And by the way, the assertion that Christianity is based on dignity, cooperative effort, equality, and justice? If you don't accept the Dogma you will not walk with Christ in the Kingdom - not very dignified and basically makes you unequal to the Christians. That's two down. As for cooperative effort and justice...I'll give you the first one. Many religious organizations build hospitals and feed the poor - but good luck getting an abortion or the morning after pill at one of those hospitals! Not very just.
Just sayin'.
I think comparing me to a fool and a drunk might be construed as rude, at the least.
I know the transphobia comparison was rough. What I meant to say was that feminism and Christianity both contain prejudiced elements, but in neither case are those elements fundamental to the beliefs in question.
I want to disagree with the idea that we can't discuss the issue because I believe in God and, as I understand it, you don't. That isn't the issue at hand. I know I'll never convince you to believe in God, and I don't want to. The issue at hand is whether or not Christianity and feminism can inform each other, or for that matter, even coexist. You've argued that Christianity is sexist at the core, both in tradition, current experience, and in the Bible. I am arguing that though the tradition is sexist, the Bible's general theme and the current experience of many liberal Christians today suggest that feminism and Christianity can and do coexist and inform each other.
I don't want you to believe in God; but I would like for you and other Feministing posters in general, to acknowledge that feminist Christians are NOT engaging in crazy mental contortions. We are not secretly sexist. Our(recognizing that I'm using an our that suggests a unity that doesn't really exist, for rhetorical purposes)lived experience tells us that feminism and Christianity coexist and work together, and, since that's how it's worked in our lives, I really resent people telling us we're wrong and that actually we're just engaging in this massively hypocritical mental juggling act involving enormous self-loathing and internalized sexism.
That's my request for Feministing: stop assuming your knowledge of Christianity is so comprehensive that you can tell me I'm wrong about how I live my faith and my feminism. Disagree with my interpretation of the Bible, sure (If you want to argue that Genesis and those passages in the letters are key, fine. I'm sure I do minimize them in part because of my beliefs). But don't tell me that I am an intellectual contortionist or an enabler, because I'm not.
Also, although anyone can know Christianity through study or past experience, faith is individual, so please don't suggest that a belief you don't share is sexist at its core. I'd like to determine that for myself, please, since I'm the believer in question. If you want to argue that the Bible is sexist at its core, fine; I don't agree but textual interpretation is just that, interpretation. But faith is something a little more complex than textual interpretation; it starts with interpretation but has other aspects. And, you're right, it's not something you can argue, so I'd rather you didn't try. As for arguing that Christianity is sexist at its core, setting aside the Bible for a second, that question goes back to lived experiences of actual feminist Christians, who will tell you that Christianity is not, in fact, sexist at its core.
Also, not everyone believes in a strict interpretation of who goes to hell. And the organizations you refer to that won't give out abortions/the morning after pill are Catholic. Please don't generalize; many liberal Protestants are pro-choice. And our justice isn't just about feeding the poor, although I appreciate your acknowledging that; Christians were involved in both the abolition and the civil rights movements, and Christianity was a key part of the rationale for those movements.
We can't agree on matters of faith, but as for what that faith means for feminism, I really, really would like for non-Christian feminists to be a little more open minded. I am not asking anyone to believe in God, that would be crazy. I would just like people to make some effort to actually understand what Christianity actually means for actual liberal feminists, rather than assuming that what they know/have experienced trumps what Christian feminists know/believe/have experienced. Because the ignorance displayed on these boards (I've been reading for a while) is astounding and offensive.
I know many people have had bad experiences with church, but that isn't the whole deal. My experience is valid, too.
"Christians were involved in both the abolition and the civil rights movements, and Christianity was a key part of the rationale for those movements."
And Christianity was also used to justify slavery and women's oppression. That is the problem. Christianity can be used to justify ANYTHING.Not a basket I would put all (or any) my eggs in.
All right, I really think that just borders on the offensive. You think I don't know Christianity was used to justify slavery, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, etc? Of course Christianity's been used to justify bad things. So has every other ideology in the world. You don't have to imply that it's stupid to put one's faith in it. Just respect that it can be an important part of some feminist Christians' belief systems, and leave it there. Is that really so impossible? I can accept that you find my faith flawed; I can even accept that it (faith, tradition, and Bible) IS flawed. Why can't you accept that it's important to me and that it's capable of informing liberal ideologies? Because it is, and it does. Have you ever heard of liberation theology? You should look into it. Just because Christians sometimes ignore the bad stuff, doesn't mean you get to ignore the good stuff. You know, some of us think those previous interpretations were wrong. The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his purpose - a pretty old saying, but that doesn't change the real value of what people get out of their faith (And it's not just comfort, so don't do that really awful condescending thing people do sometimes, where they say, Oh, I get that religion can provide a lot of comfort!)
First, I was not "implying" that it is stupid to put all one's eggs in the religion basket, I was stating that opinion outright.
Second, after reading your subsequent posts, I have pretty much lost what respect I had for you.
Third, I can accept that Christianity is important to many people. However, the initial inquiry was whether or not Christianity is FEMINIST. I think it is decidedly ANTI-FEMINIST.
"You know, some of us think those previous interpretations were wrong. The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his purpose - a pretty old saying, but that doesn't change the real value of what people get out of their faith..."
Are you seriously comparing my very rational analysis to the Devil? Bless your little heart, you are too much...
Oh, well. Que cera cera...although I am sure that your Christianity provides you with a great deal of...COMFORT...
First, I was not "implying" that it is stupid to put all one's eggs in the religion basket, I was stating that opinion outright.
Second, after reading your subsequent posts, I have pretty much lost what respect I had for you.
Third, I can accept that Christianity is important to many people. However, the initial inquiry was whether or not Christianity is FEMINIST. I think it is decidedly ANTI-FEMINIST.
"You know, some of us think those previous interpretations were wrong. The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his purpose - a pretty old saying, but that doesn't change the real value of what people get out of their faith..."
Are you seriously comparing my very rational analysis to the Devil? Bless your little heart, you are too much...
Oh, well. Que sera sera...although I am sure that your Christianity provides you with a great deal of...COMFORT...
one final thing... I know I've been pretty heated here. I'm not so much reacting to you specifically, as to what I've seen on this board over time and in other feminist contexts. And I do appreciate that critiques can and should be made of all institutions; faith-based ones are not exempt. It's just that when critiques are presented as comprehensive of all Christianity and all experience, it bugs.
I guess one thing that I don't understand about liberal Christians is why even be Christian? Why not just be spiritual because it sounds like that is more of what you are. You want to devote your life to serving your creator and pleasing them with everything that you do. Why do you need to be labeled as a Christian in order to do that? If you disagree with a lot of Christian teachings and you do not think that it is essential to be Christian in order to be "saved" (in the cases of others who don't believe and who you said that you did not want to convert) then why are you Christian?
Sorry if I sound like I am hounding you, but I really just do not understand why you feel that you need the label if you could very well believe everything that you do but just be a spiritual person?
You're not hounding me, it's valid question and one I've asked myself. There are several reasons why I continue to be a Christian. One, it's how I was raised and it's a big part of my family. That might seem brainwashed but I think people's cultural background is important. People can take a lot of comfort from a tradition or family practice. Two, I am not really a moral relativist (it's complicated, of course, but putting that aside), and I believe strongly in many of the ethical prescriptions in the Bible, particularly those relating to economic justice, love, and forgiveness. Three, more open ended traditions, like Unitarianism, are really not to my taste. They are WONDERFUL traditions, and I support them totally from a philosophical standpoint, but they just don't work for me. I don't really enjoy New Age rhetoric. That's just a taste issue, but taste can be important.
And I would clarify that I wouldn't say I disagree with a lot of Christian teachings, I would say that there are certain points in the Bible where I don't take it literally but rather in its historical context. I focus on the main theme(s) and I agree with all of those. All parts of the Bible are not equally important. Justice is discussed dozens of times, whereas homosexuality is mentioned like 5 times. A passage about wearing cloth of many fibers is not equally important with the first of the 10 commandments (Love the Lord your God...)
As for being "saved," etc, I don't personally believe that a loving God sends people to hell (and I wouldn't think it was my business who's going even if I did), but I do believe that Christianity, for me, is the best way of knowing God and being a good person.
So that's why I'm still a Christian. Oh, and thanks to the poster below, I appreciate your saying that the OP isn't brainwashed.
"Two, I am not really a moral relativist (it's complicated, of course, but putting that aside), and I believe strongly in many of the ethical prescriptions in the Bible, particularly those relating to economic justice, love, and forgiveness."
Another Christian "teaching" you may wish to revisit is the straw-man argument that anyone who does not accept the Christian God as the Giver of Laws is a moral relativist.
Arguing that moral absolutism can only come from the Christian God, as I inferred from your statement, seems to me to be inconsistent with rejecting some of the "ethical prescriptions in the Bible."
I'm probably nitpicking here, as your statement was in response to a question I would not have asked. Rejection of the religion in which one was inculcated is difficult for many reasons. Changing religion is not like changing one's wardrobe.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Christians have a monopoly on moral absolutism (Not even sure the Bible says that). It would have been better and more accurate to say that I find the core Christian teachings deeply meaningful. Like you say, changing your religion isn't like changing your religion. It's something that feels pretty fundamental to me at this point, as it's been a big part of my life. That's probably the biggest reason why I, a very liberal Christian, wouldn't jump ship to the Unitarians or to agnosticism.
After skimming through this entire discussion I am very turned off by the closed mindedness and rude comments of some (not all) of the posters.
The original poster stated her feelings as to why abstinence and religion are important to her and her as a feminist. She didn't tell anyone here that they should be abstinent or that it should be the sole topic in sexual education classes. She isn't protesting with a sign calling us all sluts. She's just stating her views on her own sexuality and how she believes, as I understand, it is feminist to her and her beliefs.
Yet, the response seems to be that she must be brain washed and that her views and faith therefore are not valid. Religion and faith are very personal beliefs and people have many reasons for choosing to be Christian. It isn't our job to be policing people's faith. Similarly, feminism is personal. What's feminist to one person is going to be debatable to another. That doesn't mean we don't have these debates. They're important to understand what role feminism plays in our lives. It's one thing to debate. It's another thing to tell a person they're brain washed or to invalidate their personal faith and claim that they aren't being or are less of a feminist.
I say this as a nonreligious, atheist person.
From where I'm standing, I can see why a few people would be defensive about the way her post often uses the broad term "Christian" to describe all beliefs, when not all Christians would agree with her interpretation of doctrine surrounding abstinence (I personally take offense at this because my dad's a Presbyterian minister with a Ph.D. in Christian theology, and abstinence-until-marriage is one thing he neither practiced nor preaches).
At the same time, though, I agree with you completely that the way others are demonizing her religion, and acting like she doesn't have agency if she chooses to base her decisions about her body on religion rather than her libido. She's not telling anyone else what their decision should be.
I'm an agnostic, but also a 19-year-old who - well, I really hate the term "virgin," but I guess that's what I am. Obviously it's not because of religion, and it's not because I'm ashamed of my sexuality either (I'm active in pro-choice and sex ed groups at my university). It's a combination of me simply having too much on my plate right now, and not really finding any guy I'm interesting in having sex with, basically. I'm not really interested in having sex with anyone I'm not in a committed relationship with (not to demonize though who are, though) and considering that, I don't really know any guys at the moment who are worth expending the energy that a relationship requires. (And I'm an introvert with Aspberger Syndrome, so making an effort to seek out someone to get to know IS a lot of energy for me to expend.)
And yet, I constantly get the impression - unspoken, but still there - that I'm a bad feminist because my hymen is still intact. That I need to be acting on my sex drive constantly, or it's either not there or severely repressed. Having sex with guys I'm not interested in because it's the "progressive" thing to do is just as bad (and anything BUT feminist) as a girl who really DOES want sex who says no because she's told she's a whore if she doesn't.
So I can more than sympathize with the OP in this regard. Virgin-shaming is just as bad as slut-shaming, and can be just as sexist and harmful. It has no place in feminist places and needs to stop, now.
I don't think anyone here is "virgin shaming" or at least I am not. I do however still have some issues with the idea of remaining a virgin due to religious regions. I'm sorry for that but I just don't feel that you personally making a decision to remain a virgin or just not having the time for sexual exploration is the same as not having sex because of your religious beliefs. I believe that one is choice and one is not really a choice.
So if anything, the issue is with religion controlling an individual's choices, not the choices that the individual makes.
Just FTR, I don't use the term "virgin" to describe myself, just because I don't think it's a very meaningful term in terms of the medical context and also because I don't like all the significance society attaches to "your first time" or the idea that those who haven't had sex have something others don't or vice versa. And I particularly don't like the phrases "remain a virgin" or "keep/lose virginity."
While I disagree that making a decision based on one's own interpretation of religion is not making an "independent choice," I do get what you're saying. I agree if you're talking about it as a choice that's made in a vacuum - that is, not getting or simply ignoring perspectives on sex from other places. However, that doesn't sound like the OP's situation. I think if one has considered other perspectives on sex, that choosing to go with the conservative-religious one isn't a decision that is made without agency.
I'll point out that I don't think the "virgin-shaming" here is necessarily intentional, nor do I think you're the one doing it either. However, I can see where the OP is coming from as I often feel stigmatized here for not having had sex. An example of this is that one of the arguments against abstinence-only sex ed is that abstinence is an unrealistic goal. And while that's true for a lot of teens and young adults, I feel like putting it in absolutes leaves out those of us who were/are able to not have sex in high school or college, or implying that we're repressed in some way. Level of repression isn't tied to frequency of sexual activity; I know a lot of sexually-active friends who are quite ashamed of their sexuality, and a lot of non-sexually-active friends who are anything but.
No, please don't say that religious beliefs imply lack of choice! Beliefs of any kind are only a reason for a choice; they don't necessarily force it. I know that the threat of hell is used coercively in conservative churches. But this is not always the case; in a lot of places, church is about making Christian choices. There are Christian reasons for abstinence (see my other responses.)
I really don't think that, setting aside hell as a coercive tactic, because that's not they type of church we're talking about, you can say that faith is any different than feminism as an ideological standpoint from which to make choices. I really hate the idea that unreadiness is the only possible reason for abstinence. Morality is not a bad reason for it, and it doesn't mean you are shaming anyone else. If I elect to have sex because I'm a feminist and I believe women should act on their sexuality, I'm not being coerced. And if I elect not to have sex because I'm a Christian (obviously there's intersectionality here; a Christian feminist might elect the first or the second position) I am not being coerced, either. Religion as a motivation does not equal coersion, and the idea that it does is frankly offensive to me.
I agree with your points here. The OP's post was a bit vague to me, I couldn't tell if she was talking about how abstinence should be taught or that we shouldn't virgin shame. I honestly wasn't sure what point she was trying to make.
I often feel sometimes the feminist community can be a bit virgin shaming, but not to an extreme degree that the OP seems to feel. When abstinence is brought up around here it is generally about abstinence only education and not about people being abstinent themselves. It is wrong to pressure people to not have sex because it is immoral but it's not bad if you choose to be abstinent. Though yeah, I agree, sometimes it really doesn't feel that way.
No, I was not advocating that abstinence be taught or encouraged my mainstream society. For example:
"Yes, some of the language that emphasizes the image of virginity as a “gift” that can only be given once, or as central to a young person’s self-worth is dangerous propaganda. And yes, abstinence-only education is a disaster."
"The fact is simple: abstinence is a part of conservative Christian culture. Whether or not you share their beliefs, it would be anti-feminist to deny Christians’ own agency in choosing those beliefs for themselves. Consider this a call for a shift in attitude toward those young people who choose not to have sex for reasons related to Christianity."
"The bottom line is that teenage and young-adult Christians have freely and independently chosen those beliefs. They are most certainly old enough to decide for themselves whether they would like to accept or reject the concept of religion. The young men and women who choose not to have sex because of Christian beliefs are not being oppressed, coerced, or stifled."
Those are all from the original article. There's clearly no implication that abstinence should be encouraged in anyone who doesn't choose it for her/himself.
And yes, it's absolutely true that when abstinence is typically brought up in feminist discourse, it relates to abstinence-only education. However, there had been a recent pattern (in the week or so before I posted this article) of posts and comments that implied (or flat-out said) that the choice not to have sex is only valid if it is not made for religious reasons. That's why I posted this. Hope I cleared some things up!
Lumping all Christians together seems to be a recurring problem on this thread, but I'm not sure it's one the OP shares. If you take a look at her comments, under the name Melissa, you'll see that she does differentiate between denominations.
Sounds like your upbringing might have been a little like mine. My dad is a Methodist minister (as were my paternal grandparents) with a PhD in systematic theology and social ethics. Ironically, he's probably more liberal than I am on the abstinence front... I'm still unsure how I feel about it. He also (this is off topic, but relevant to the whole Christian-feminism thing) used to testify at the RI state house from a pro-choice stance on abortion legislation.