This is a response to my polemical post 'feminism is not responsible for...' from a few days ago.
1. I was kidding about global warming. I've never heard that pinned on feminism.
2. Working mums, institutionalised child care, pornography, raunch culture, and homosexuality have, of course, been influenced by feminist thinking. The point I'd like to make is that there were/are broader things going on in our culture that have made a bigger impact than feminism. It gets on my nerves when Christians see feminism as the big nasty that we need to shoot down (not noticing that, in many ways, it's already dead) instead of the bigger, nastier and more insidious evils of capitalism, greed, power hunger and our insatiable sexual lust.
When was the last time you heard of a young guy wanting to put a dent in captitalism's hold on our country? Ummm. Never. How about someone writing/preaching anti-feminist stuff? Last week? Yesterday?
I think it takes little guts to preach against feminism because that's where our society is going anyway. More than ever, girls are dreaming of life-long marriage to Prince Charming and planning to forsake career for his sake. Doctors are telling us to have kids earlier. Politicians are telling us to have more kids. It is not counter cultural for our preachers to be telling us this stuff.
It is counter cultural for our preachers to tell us to reject capitalism: to rent a small house in a low socio-economic suburb, to buy a cheap car, to send our kids to state schools (and limit their academic and social advancement)... to do whatever to show that money and power don't matter. This is what I need to hear. I don't need to hear about whether or not women should be working outside the home.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know if I want to touch this. But.
ReplyDeleteIt actually is counter-cultural to reject feminism. Sure, we could probably forget the cheap shots that barely scratch the surface. My point is that feminism has deeper issues and pre-suppositions that will still effect the culture for years to come, even if the whole Prince Charming thing does kick in. In fact, coupled with the Prince Charming thing, the feminist male-bashing epidemic (just for one instance) is even more dangerous.
And on the smaller, more practical issues? It is actually important to talk about this stuff. Simply because we do need people to be giving us balanced (and by that, I mean scriptural) understandings of what it means to work outside the home as a woman. Because, recognising the deeper issues of feminism, there is a growing movement in Western Christian home-schooling circles (and they're bigger than you think) that seems to take the view that to reject the horrible thing we know as feminism, we have to reject the right for any women (singles too!) to work or study outside the home. Feminism = unbiblical, therefore working outside the home = unbiblical, to them.
And, obviously, talking about gender issues is not incompatible with talking about economic issues.
I won't apologise for starting an argument. I now know you like them. ;)
I agree. In fact I go on about this so much that it's boring (just ask my husband).
ReplyDeleteI will make two more polemic statements, just for fun.
1. I think Kirsten Birkett's "The Essence of Feminism" is a sloppy analysis of feminism. It concerns me that christians seem to have adopted it as their singular source of authority on the issue.
2. I'm bemused by the way we over-gender-ise everything as christians. Why do we do this?
Oh I totally agree onlinesoph about "The Essence of Feminism". I got so angry at that book. But I think the divider on that is if you are a more "arts degree" person or a "science person". And I was sad about the fact that I don't think she acknowledged that she could write such a book because of what feminism had done for her. (But it is so long since I *tried* to read it, I hope I'm not misremembering...
ReplyDeleteMrs. R says: "I'm bemused by the way we over-gender-ise everything as christians. Why do we do this?"
ReplyDeleteI would blame it (partly and with reservations) on feminism, actually...feminism tends to see female oppression in every text, chauvinism in every text...in fact, if a text doesn't mention females it is therefore chauvinistic and bad. I don't know that this is really good - take the practical outworking in history, for instance. Every high-school topic involves a "woman's perspective" section, usually a section that has far too much emphasis on trivial or peripheral sources. Somewhat helpful, somewhat of a time-wasting over-genderisation to prove that we're not "marginalising" the impact of women on history.
Anyway. :)
erinisle - which way do you see the "arts degree / science degree" fall? I.e. which way would an arts degree person fall vs science?
ReplyDeleteFor me, I hated the book because:
(i) she forgot to mention that the earlier feminists (turn of the 19th Century) were into things like pro-life, voting, allowing women to work, enabling women to inherit, enabling women to divorce physically abusive or cheating husbands without automatically losing access to their children...
(ii) she details a list of things that the Australian gov't of the 1930s said should be affordable on a man's income. The list includes "house-help" for the woman of the house.
Who's the "house-help"? She conveniently neglects to mention that it's another woman!
She then decries feminism for supposedly making all women wage slaves when our foremothers had it so good. Quite frankly, that list had nothing to do with my family's socio-economic level - my grandmother was one of those women who were the house-help because economic roles for women were largely unavailable.
I've just found that the science-based degree people tend to be happy with the way Birkett researches and draws conclusions from her history and philosophy of science background (or whatever that type of degree is called, I can't remember) while people who have studied arts-based degrees tend to let feminism be a lens through which you might read something - one that is as valid as the next type of reading. The facts and figures seem to work for the sciencey people. But I totally agree with you - the reasons I disliked the book are along the lines of yours - it is just she had all this data to back it up (if I remember rightly) which tends to convince the black and white sciency (Syd Ang...) style people.
ReplyDeleteI think that her entire foundation was flawed, however.
I'm living in London now and am thankful for my Syd Ang heritage but also have had my experiences broadened slightly (plus I attended a more emotional Syd Ang church in the inner west before I left). So it is interesting to look back in on Sydney from time to time. I'm at (working for even) a very evangelical church in London, attended the first Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans meeting but it is interesting to me the way that things are a little less straitjacketed over here. And how I recently heard Peter Jensen speak at a church plant from Holy Trinity Brompton, where he was standing next to the vicar there during the worship half hour we started with...but now I'm off topic :-) Sorry!
Hi Simone,
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your last paragraph - although I wonder is it capitalism that is the problem, rather than materialism or just plain greed?
The thing about being counter-cultural in the area of possessions/homes/schools etc, is it's one thing to say it, but much harder to actually do. But I do think it's an area where we don't always get much support from other Christians.
But also, the decisions we make re childcare, working or whatever, are all part of living a distinctively Christian life. We don't (or shouldn't be) making decisions on the same basis as the world does. So I don't think that feminism is entirely irrelevant here, I just think that some of the ways I've heard it discussed are not helpful, and can be clumsy and insensitive, putting an unnecessary stumbling-block in the way of people listening to the gospel.
Caroline
HI Simone, I do agree with you but my computer keeps eating all my posts. Will try to come back later!
ReplyDeleteHi Anika,
ReplyDeleteHow do you know my last name? Just curious.
I agree with you to a certain extent (and can relate going to a school that was very pro-feminism), but I just wonder whether there are better, more creative ways of responding as a church. I wonder if we suffer from the same tunnel vision - except we have our "biblical womanhood" goggles on instead of "feminism" goggles.
Just musing out aloud...
My guess soph is that your husband blogs with the name SamR.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I'm willing to contribute to this discussion. It's scary.
I will say that I find many of Matthias Media's treaties on things a little too simplistic and they often degenerate into a gospel presentation that makes no real conclusion on the matter at hand... I'm looking at you "Unnatural Enemies"...
"My guess soph is that your husband blogs with the name SamR."
ReplyDeleteYup - sorry if it bothers you! One just likes to be polite...
And I absolutely agreed with your point. Everything must be seen from a the perspective of "biblical womanhood". What's in the Bible on the topic we should acknowledge - but how much is there, really? And how pivotal is it?
haha...no it doesn't bother me Anika. I was just curious :)
ReplyDelete