Can you reconcile Christianity with feminism? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2009, 05:52 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,313
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
I realize others see it these facts differently and interpret them through the filter of their faith. But for me, as a non-Christian and a feminist the facts are more important that the churches interpretation of them.
Correction: as a non-Christian and a feminist your non-Christian feminist interpretation of the facts is more important than the church's Christian, non-feminist interpretation of them. Feminists don't have dibs on objectivity, thanks very much; nor do non-Christians. Just a pet peeve of mine.

I think people who have a problem with Christianity not being 'feminist' aren't really engaging with the radical nature of the Gospel. Today's culture is very much about rights, what the world owes us, whether anyone's getting a better deal than us. The Bible isn't. Heck it says to submit - willingly - to slavery, torture and death if necessary, for the sake of Christ. And the whole thing is exemplified by Christ, who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing (Phil 2:6-7).

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-23-2009, 05:52 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,313
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
I realize others see it these facts differently and interpret them through the filter of their faith. But for me, as a non-Christian and a feminist the facts are more important that the churches interpretation of them.
Correction: as a non-Christian and a feminist your non-Christian feminist interpretation of the facts is more important than the church's Christian, non-feminist interpretation of them. Feminists don't have dibs on objectivity, thanks very much; nor do non-Christians. Just a pet peeve of mine.

I think people who have a problem with Christianity not being 'feminist' aren't really engaging with the radical nature of the Gospel. Today's culture is very much about rights, what the world owes us, whether anyone's getting a better deal than us. The Bible isn't. Heck it says to submit - willingly - to slavery, torture and death if necessary, for the sake of Christ. And the whole thing is exemplified by Christ, who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing (Phil 2:6-7).

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 06:02 PM
 
Callimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Correction: as a non-Christian and a feminist your non-Christian feminist interpretation of the facts is more important than the church's Christian, non-feminist interpretation of them. Feminists don't have dibs on objectivity, thanks very much; nor do non-Christians. Just a pet peeve of mine.

I think people who have a problem with Christianity not being 'feminist' aren't really engaging with the radical nature of the Gospel. Today's culture is very much about rights, what the world owes us, whether anyone's getting a better deal than us. The Bible isn't. Heck it says to submit - willingly - to slavery, torture and death if necessary, for the sake of Christ. And the whole thing is exemplified by Christ, who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing (Phil 2:6-7).
Thank you but I don't need to be corrected. I was defining myself as a non-Christian and a feminist to give context to my interpretation and my opinion on the subject. Adding that I am an non-Christian feminist to that statement is redundant. And I am not claiming I have dibs on objectivity, just stating where the emphasis lies in my thinking on this subject. You are welcome to add your position as a Christian feminist, if that is your worldview. I'd love to hear it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
I think people who have a problem with Christianity not being 'feminist' aren't really engaging with the radical nature of the Gospel.
As for the radical nature of the Gospel - not sure what specifically you mean by that. Could you clarify?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Today's culture is very much about rights, what the world owes us, whether anyone's getting a better deal than us. The Bible isn't. Heck it says to submit - willingly - to slavery, torture and death if necessary, for the sake of Christ. And the whole thing is exemplified by Christ, who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing (Phil 2:6-7).
Your view of today's culture isn't my personal paradigm but I can see where you are coming from. I don't however think it has anything to do with feminism.

Blessed partner to a great guy, and mama to 4 amazing kids. Unfortunate target of an irrationally angry IRL stalker.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ~ Buddha

Callimom is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 06:20 PM
 
purplestraws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
Is it because *they* view the roles of women as lesser, or because *you* view the roles of women as lesser?

Biblically, there is no "greater or lesser". My dh has a "leadership" role in our family but it's not greater or more important than my role as mother/manager of the home. And he doesn't get to be leader because he's better than me. Neither of us views the mother-at-home/submissive wife bit as a *lesser* position, or the leader/provider as a *greater*. They are different in order to function together. Dh would be the first to say that what I do as a wife and mom should be held in high honor.


I totally agree.

This is a great example of Genesis 3:16 and the consequences that Eve brought on the entire race of women. The power struggle that exists between men and women. Women are not happy and comfortable with their God-given roles...they want more...they want what men have.

I'm not entirely sure why it's considered such a good thing to be powerful and have control and leadership? With it comes great responsibility and strife. And it's certainly not that women aren't capable or unworthy...but honestly, if you don't have to, why would you want to? Women can still be in positions of leadership within the church...they can still find great fulfillment...teaching and ministering to other members of the church.

But why is it that women can't be content unless they're in complete and total control...to be at the top...the most important? I'm sure that most feminists would say it's because it's what they deserve...but do men deserve to be leaders...or do the HAVE to be leaders?

I don't think my husband is particularly GLAD he has be the leader all the time. It's a lot of responsibility and stress that sometimes he'd probably rather just shirk off...but he knows it's his responsibility and he knows that I'm counting on him.

And one other thought...I don't think that a lot of people understand that when a woman submits to her husband (in healthy relationships, that is)...she CHOOSES to submit...she's not told to submit, not forced to submit. It's a active decision on the woman's part to submit to her husband's leadership. She could choose not to submit...and that decision actually comes a lot more simply than choosing to lay down you pride.
purplestraws is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 06:37 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Purplestraws, I understand that you are happy in the role you have chosen, which is great. But when thinking about *other* women's choices, do you think that ALL women who want to be in leadership roles want that because mainstream society or feminists told them it was more important? Are they misguided, and they'd really be happier in a role with less responsibility?

Or do you think that some women just naturally have a personality that thrives on being in the spotlight, dealing with big problems, and shouldering lots of responsibility? Is it possible for other women to sincerely enjoy the things that you don't? If so, how does that fit with your view of God-given roles?
Thao is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 07:18 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,313
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Karenwith4: You juxtaposed 'facts' with 'the Christian non-feminist interpretation', which read to me as a claim to objectivity of sorts - as in, 'my way of looking at things is right, your way is a bias'. Apologies if I misread you.

Christianity is radical in that is counterintuitive to human nature. It turns the other cheek, is willing to suffer injustice, has higher priorities than 'what's fair' or 'what's good for me' - all things that run rather counter to natural human tendencies. That's not to say that Christianity cannot or even should not address social justice, but rather that it isn't about social justice. There are higher priorities for a Christian (to put it crudely, no matter how bad or unjust things are here on earth, it won't be worse than hell!). Paul puts it rather succintly to slaves: if you can obtain your freedom, go for it, but if you can't, don't worry, being a slave can be a great opportunity to live for Christ and it doesn't prevent you from being saved.

I say this to explain why a lot of Christian women don't get too riled up about the feminist cause - equality isn't the main thing they want out of life, salvation is. Which is not to say there aren't some women who are called to rectify some injustices; there are, and there's nothing Biblically wrong with, say, campaigning for equal pay for equal work. There is something wrong if the desire to get what we feel the world owes us interferes with us being Christlike wives, mothers, employees, citizens or whatever, though.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 07:18 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
I'm wondering why no one has responded to this point. ....
While I agree that the motherhood/priesthood comparison is a poor one (literal motherhood is to literal fatherhood, and not otherwise), I think the difference here is in whether one is looking at it from a point of view of strict individualism or of satisfying individuals while also maintaining a community standard deemed to be in some manner beneficial. Certain community standards would dictate there are strong benefits in women primarily acting as family managers, child rearers, nurturers of private spaces, etc, etc, etc. That doesn't mean that no woman ever does otherwise or is satisfied otherwise. It does, however, mean that said community's institutions will be established on the basis of its standard and not on the basis of the possibility of deviation from the standard. A standard that gives preference to a defined role for women which does not include a particular kind of public space leadership does not necessarily prevent women who desire similar public roles from holding them, or chastise them for holding them; it simply does not itself institutionalize them. A woman who wishes to be a spiritual leader may do so, but she may not be a part of a specific institution of spiritual leadership. A man who wishes to hold for himself the roles a community gives primarily to its women may do so, or in certain circumstances may be obliged to do so, however his doing so is unlikely to be elevated to the level of cultural expectation or norm.

(Obviously some people will take issue with the notion of there being a benefit at all to that particular standard, but that's not at all what I'm talking about here.)
Liquesce is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 07:48 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is much I agree with you, Liquesce. That it is a good thing to have a community standard that encourages one parent to stay at home and be the primary caregiver of children. That the parent who stays at home is, partly for biological reasons, going to most often be the woman. I'm also fine with communities defining certain roles for men and women within their communities.

Where I have a problem (and I notice you did not use this term) is with the idea of God-given roles. The instant that term is used, it is no longer an internal standard for a certain community and its willing participants, but rather a God-given standard for all human beings. So while it is understandable that communities will establish expectations based on what the majority does (i.e. that women will do most of the childcare because that is what the majority of women do), that is a different thing than saying that women doing most of the childcare is the God-given order of things, the role in which a woman will feel most blessed and fulfilled. If it is just a community standard, then a woman is, as you say, free to pursue her ambitions elsewhere and no one will judge her. But if it is God's will that women make motherhood their primary identity, then any woman who chooses to not have children or to pursue a career while her husband stays at home is obviously not following God's will for her life.
Thao is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 08:10 PM
 
Callimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Christianity is radical in that is counterintuitive to human nature. It turns the other cheek, is willing to suffer injustice, has higher priorities than 'what's fair' or 'what's good for me' - all things that run rather counter to natural human tendencies. That's not to say that Christianity cannot or even should not address social justice, but rather that it isn't about social justice. There are higher priorities for a Christian (to put it crudely, no matter how bad or unjust things are here on earth, it won't be worse than hell!). Paul puts it rather succintly to slaves: if you can obtain your freedom, go for it, but if you can't, don't worry, being a slave can be a great opportunity to live for Christ and it doesn't prevent you from being saved.

I say this to explain why a lot of Christian women don't get too riled up about the feminist cause - equality isn't the main thing they want out of life, salvation is. Which is not to say there aren't some women who are called to rectify some injustices; there are, and there's nothing Biblically wrong with, say, campaigning for equal pay for equal work. There is something wrong if the desire to get what we feel the world owes us interferes with us being Christlike wives, mothers, employees, citizens or whatever, though.
So bringing this back to the OP would this mean that you cannot be both a Christian and a feminist in your opinion? Is feminism ever relevant to Christians? Is there any reason to work towards rectifying injustices (feminist or otherwise) based on your understanding of what Paul said?
Karen

Blessed partner to a great guy, and mama to 4 amazing kids. Unfortunate target of an irrationally angry IRL stalker.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ~ Buddha

Callimom is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 08:13 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It gets sticky, considering that when talking about a religious community, not just generic communities overall, there is of course a very good chance that we are talking about a belief in the right of particular god-given guidelines, at the very least, for behavior/lifestyles/etc. But I don't think -- or rather I know -- that belief in roles as defined by god does not necessarily fall into the category of "for all mankind," end, stop, no further elaboration. There is that, there are also roles defined as for believers, and there are roles defined as for believers which "wiggle room" built in for difference. The problem becomes one of particular scriptures and interpretations of scriptures, not necessarily the concept itself. "Motherhood is where most women will find the greatest blessings and fulfilment" is just as potentially from "on high" as "motherhood is where all women will find the greatest blessings and fulfilment," and so on.
Liquesce is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 08:26 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You are right that the main issue is interpretation of certain scriptures. The thing I have noticed in some religious communities is that people accept certain interpretations because it works beautifully for them, but neglect to think about the more far-reaching ramifications of the interpretation. That is what my questions are about; not to judge or disrespect anyone's choices for themselves, but to challenge people who hold universal views to think about what the ramifications of those views really are.

In the case of "motherhood is where all women will find the greatest blessings and fulfilment", the ramification is that the Condi Rices of this world are living a second-best life. There are concrete political ramifications as well. A person who holds this view might oppose legislation that creates better conditions for working mothers because after all why would one want to encourage people to make choices that are second-best?

The statement "motherhood is where most women will find the greatest blessings and fulfilment" doesn't have any of those ramifications.

So I think for the OP, the key is to find a church which holds an interpretation of scripture that, when thought out to its logical ramifications, is something that she feels comfortable with at the deepest level.
Thao is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 08:59 PM
 
Watershippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MittensKittens View Post
What Christian denomination are these women?
I am very proud that there is a women currently filling the highest position in the Episcopal church. Not the highest position a woman can hold, but the highest anyone can hold. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop. She was elected by male and female clergy and laity.

Our denomination got to this place, I suspect, not through feminism (though I and my partner are both proud to call ourselves feminists and christians), but through running headfirst into the issues of homosexuality and transgenderedness. While other churches try not to deal with it/ pretend there are no queer christians, ours has confronted the issue and made quite a bit of progress. *Every church will have to confront it eventually, but many are not yet ready.*

If you are looking for an "egalitarian" church (believing one's role in church is not dependent on gender), I'd recommend finding one that has a history of accepting queer families. They are so "over" gender and tend to focus on more important things. A few I can think of now: most Episcopal/Anglican, most Anglo-catholic, most ELCA Lutheran, some Presbyterian, most Quakers, some Mennonites, basically all United Church of Christ, some Old Order Catholics...I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting. Keywords that denote queer-friendly: "welcoming" and "reconciling in Christ."

The other option for gender roles in churches is a philosophy called "complimentarianism," which most Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians hold to-- the idea that men and women are equal in value but were made different and given different roles. I was raised in this view and rejected it when it became apparent God had made me a very butch sort of female.

Mamma since 10/22/09
Watershippy is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 09:04 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,313
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
So bringing this back to the OP would this mean that you cannot be both a Christian and a feminist in your opinion? Is feminism ever relevant to Christians? Is there any reason to work towards rectifying injustices (feminist or otherwise) based on your understanding of what Paul said?
I think you can be a Christian and a certain type of feminist. I think feminism is relevant to everyone, in that it impacts the world in which we live; and yes, there's a reason to work towards rectifying injustices, as long as one doesn't fall into the trap of 'salvation by social change'.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 01:04 AM
 
purplestraws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
Purplestraws, I understand that you are happy in the role you have chosen, which is great. But when thinking about *other* women's choices, do you think that ALL women who want to be in leadership roles want that because mainstream society or feminists told them it was more important? Are they misguided, and they'd really be happier in a role with less responsibility?

Or do you think that some women just naturally have a personality that thrives on being in the spotlight, dealing with big problems, and shouldering lots of responsibility? Is it possible for other women to sincerely enjoy the things that you don't? If so, how does that fit with your view of God-given roles?
Well, I thought the OP was asking about reconciling Christianity and feminism...not about ALL women. I think if a woman is a Christian and believes in the authority of the Bible...then yes, I think she should seek to be content where God has her and where He may lead her. And that involves accepting that she IS a woman and that God has a specific plan for her - and that it might not be what SHE wants.

It's not about wants and desires...it's about having faith and learning to be content.

And yes, a woman may enjoy all of those things you mentioned. There is nothing unBiblical about a woman being in the spotlight, dealing with big problems and shouldering responsibility. However, a woman can do ALL of those things without having to be in the top leadership role in her church or family.
purplestraws is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 01:44 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplestraws View Post
Well, I thought the OP was asking about reconciling Christianity and feminism...not about ALL women. I think if a woman is a Christian and believes in the authority of the Bible...then yes, I think she should seek to be content where God has her and where He may lead her. And that involves accepting that she IS a woman and that God has a specific plan for her - and that it might not be what SHE wants.

It's not about wants and desires...it's about having faith and learning to be content.

And yes, a woman may enjoy all of those things you mentioned. There is nothing unBiblical about a woman being in the spotlight, dealing with big problems and shouldering responsibility. However, a woman can do ALL of those things without having to be in the top leadership role in her church or family.
Maybe I was reading my own issues into the OP's post , but my understanding was that the reason why she has problems reconciling Christianity with feminism is because of the Bible's view of women's nature and role... which means all women. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the Biblical view is that God created woman to be a mother and helpmeet, that would apply to all women, right? And that women that do otherwise are not really living up to their full potential, whether Christian or non?

Do you think a woman who chooses to pursue a career rather than have children (like Condi Rice) is following God's will for her life? I am truly curious.
Thao is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 02:22 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,313
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
if the Biblical view is that God created woman to be a mother and helpmeet, that would apply to all women, right?
I agree with you in that I don't think that is the Biblical view. God created Eve as a helpmeet for Adam. (Heh, I said 'helpmeet'). You could perhaps validly expand that to say that wives are helpmeets for their husbands, but not that women are generic 'helpmeets'. Because, well, not all women are married - so who would they be helpmeets to? An equally generic 'men'? That doesn't really make sense. A single woman is under no particular obligation to help her single male neighbor with his accounting or dishes or gardening simply because she's a woman.

I don't think all women are created to be mothers, either. Paul heartily commends chaste singleness, which kinda precludes motherhood.

I definitely see motherhood and marriage as normative in Scripture, but I think you could make a case either way as to what that implies.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 02:28 AM
 
PatienceAndLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 1,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
Maybe I was reading my own issues into the OP's post , but my understanding was that the reason why she has problems reconciling Christianity with feminism is because of the Bible's view of women's nature and role... which means all women. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the Biblical view is that God created woman to be a mother and helpmeet, that would apply to all women, right? And that women that do otherwise are not really living up to their full potential, whether Christian or non?

Do you think a woman who chooses to pursue a career rather than have children (like Condi Rice) is following God's will for her life? I am truly curious.
I am not going to attempt an answer.

My personal belief- not really. Women were designed with a purpose- to bear children and to physically compliment men. I really and truly believe that there are certain vocations that women cannot fulfill- priesthood being one of them.

Proud Catholic (30) and mama to V (10)
PatienceAndLove is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 02:35 AM
 
Callimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
and yes, there's a reason to work towards rectifying injustices, as long as one doesn't fall into the trap of 'salvation by social change'.
Could you explain this idea a bit more?
thanks
Karen

Blessed partner to a great guy, and mama to 4 amazing kids. Unfortunate target of an irrationally angry IRL stalker.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ~ Buddha

Callimom is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 02:47 AM
 
purplestraws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
Maybe I was reading my own issues into the OP's post , but my understanding was that the reason why she has problems reconciling Christianity with feminism is because of the Bible's view of women's nature and role... which means all women. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the Biblical view is that God created woman to be a mother and helpmeet, that would apply to all women, right? And that women that do otherwise are not really living up to their full potential, whether Christian or non?

Do you think a woman who chooses to pursue a career rather than have children (like Condi Rice) is following God's will for her life? I am truly curious.
I definitely agree with what Smokering said.

Being single is actually considered a blessing as it provides a unique opportunity for individuals to go deeper in their service to Christ.

I, personally, don't think there's anything inherently sinful about a woman remaining single and having a career...as long as they're truly seeking God's will for their lives and not pursing that path for selfish reasons. (i.e. - what THEY want and desire vs. what God may want for them.)
purplestraws is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 03:27 AM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 15,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 07:50 AM - Thread Starter
 
MittensKittens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WOW! I have been offline for a day and there have been soooooo many replies. I have read only the first two pages so far! This thread is getting really interesting and there is so much to think about! Once I have read everything, I hope you don't mind me spamming with lots of replies ! Thanks for all the answers, it is really useful to me.

I'm Olivia. I blog about physiological childbirth, homebirth, and unassisted homebirth!
MittensKittens is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 08:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
MittensKittens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karenwith4 View Post
My definition of feminism doesn't include submitting to sexism, which is how personally I would define the above scenario.

Others will make different interpretations of the situation and will therefore make other choices which is wonderful for them. I do find it interesting though that most who have responded to this thread either don't identify as feminists or don't identify as Christians. So perhaps that is a clue to the answer for the OP.
I agree with you totally. Yet, if it is the Church itself that is, by tradition, and by current decisions that are controlled by men, sexist, should that stop me from identifying as a Christian? The basic problem I have with that would be my belief in God . Also, someone else pointe out that the Bible is indeed full of strong women, fulfilling important roles. There are also many claims that women even played far more important roles around the time of Jesus then is now admitted. I haven't researched this, but it is quite possible. Then, should male chauvinists force me away from God, because I happen to believe that I am not less than them? Why should they "define" what Christianity is, because they are in a position of power?

I'm Olivia. I blog about physiological childbirth, homebirth, and unassisted homebirth!
MittensKittens is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
MittensKittens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think there is anything wrong with submission. I have no problem with submitting to God - neither to anything or anyone I see as an authority. But I *do* have a problem with submitting to a man, because he is a man, and because of that only.

I would also like to hear views and interpretations of the Christian idea about women who choose not to marry. What can and should their role in society be? the same question has already been asked about those who do not wish to be mothers, but I would like to know your thoughts about this as well.

I'm Olivia. I blog about physiological childbirth, homebirth, and unassisted homebirth!
MittensKittens is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 10:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
MittensKittens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
On the flip side (the more "worldly" side) I'm for choice. I'm for women being able to leave home if they want and go to school and get a job and so on. But some things are just going to be separate and I am ok with that too. I think that we can't expect everything in life to treat men and women exactly the same.

I also am for women in general. I am for the choice to fulfill traditional roles being more accepted and more respected. The pendulum has swung- now the women who leave home are respected and those who choose not to are looked down on. I want women exercising their choice to always be a beautiful thing.
I totally agree with that. Men and woman are not biologically the same, and that is something we cannot do anything about. Those are differences though, and not inequalities - those are created not by biology but by humans, IMO.

Choice is the most important issue here, I think, and that choice should be respected regardless of what that choice happens to be. If you choose to live in a way where your husband is the "head of thew household" and you feel happy and fulfilled living that way, I see no problem with that. I have a problem if those who do not choose to live like that are condemned though, I that is the issue for me.

I'm Olivia. I blog about physiological childbirth, homebirth, and unassisted homebirth!
MittensKittens is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 11:11 AM
 
Callimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MittensKittens View Post
I agree with you totally. Yet, if it is the Church itself that is, by tradition, and by current decisions that are controlled by men, sexist, should that stop me from identifying as a Christian? The basic problem I have with that would be my belief in God . Also, someone else pointe out that the Bible is indeed full of strong women, fulfilling important roles. There are also many claims that women even played far more important roles around the time of Jesus then is now admitted. I haven't researched this, but it is quite possible. Then, should male chauvinists force me away from God, because I happen to believe that I am not less than them? Why should they "define" what Christianity is, because they are in a position of power?
Should males chauvenists be able to define Christianity? No
Do they? I think so - at least in some sects.

Assuming feminism is a core component of your world view, I think the question becomes which option is most palatable to you? Do you find a church that has a liberal view of theology, where woman are treated as equals and that that attitude is incorporated in their interpretation of the Bible?
Or do you find a church whose traditions speak to you and work towards making your corner of it more suitable and inline with your feminist values (assuming that is something you can or want to do).
Or do you remove the influence of the church from your spiritual journey and develop your relationship with God outside the confines of institutional definitions of who you can or should be? If you do that, does it matter to you which church you worship in (if you choose to worship in a church at all). We attend a UU church in part because I believe spirituality is a deeply personal journey which can not and should not be defined by an institution if it is to be authentic. But I also appreciate being in an environment with other people who are on a spiritual journey, who are wanting to be stretched and supported in that, and who create a community around those beliefs.

Thank you for starting this discussion.
It's been very interesting and has sparked a number of conversations with my friends and my children.
Karen

Blessed partner to a great guy, and mama to 4 amazing kids. Unfortunate target of an irrationally angry IRL stalker.

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ~ Buddha

Callimom is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 11:22 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MittensKittens View Post
I don't think there is anything wrong with submission. I have no problem with submitting to God - neither to anything or anyone I see as an authority. But I *do* have a problem with submitting to a man, because he is a man, and because of that only.

I would also like to hear views and interpretations of the Christian idea about women who choose not to marry. What can and should their role in society be? the same question has already been asked about those who do not wish to be mothers, but I would like to know your thoughts about this as well.
This is IMO part and parcel of a larger question, what does God want for anyone who chooses not to marry?

I think God gives us a fair amount of leeway when we choose our career or vocation, most of the time. We can look at our talents, or preferences, and what happens to be required in the world around us. Of course we can't choose something that would go aginst what it is to be a Christian.

For women specifically; historically in the church there have been many roles filled by single women, or by widows. As Smokering pointed out Paul says to be single is very good, as one can serve Christ without having the needs of a family to consider. There are lots of examples in the Bible of women in many roles, including leadership roles in the church. There have been many nuns historically that led movements and were fine teachers, and some who who great scholars.

Generally, I don't see the place of single women being much different than the place of single men, except that they can't be priests (well, in my church they can but I am not sure that was a great decision.) But everyone is part of relationships involving authority and is called to submit appropriately in those relationships.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 11:49 AM
 
spero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the back of beyond
Posts: 9,488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplestraws View Post
There is nothing unBiblical about a woman being in the spotlight, dealing with big problems and shouldering responsibility. However, a woman can do ALL of those things without having to be in the top leadership role in her church or family.
What about divorced and single mamas, who are pretty much forced into the leadership role in their family? Are they supposed to just reject it? Go out and find another man to provide?

There's a lot of gray area to consider here. And look at the Proverbs 31 chick. It certainly sounds like she was rockin' a career and a family, and she certainly wasn't a shrinking violet.

I have to mention that I hate that the whole "fall of Adam" thing gets pinned squarely on Eve. They were both equally to blame. I just took a 3-part course (Catholic) in the Hebrew Scriptures, and this point was stressed right away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplestraws View Post
I, personally, don't think there's anything inherently sinful about a woman remaining single and having a career...as long as they're truly seeking God's will for their lives and not pursing that path for selfish reasons. (i.e. - what THEY want and desire vs. what God may want for them.)
So what if a woman discerns that God's will is for her to pursue a leadership role in her church?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MittensKittens View Post
the Bible is indeed full of strong women, fulfilling important roles. There are also many claims that women even played far more important roles around the time of Jesus then is now admitted.
It's not only admitted, it is being formally taught. Especially in regard to Mary Magdalene.

Every baptized Christian is, or should be, someone with an actual (disturbing) experience, ... a close encounter, with God; someone who, as a result, becomes a disturbing presence to others. - Fr. Anthony J. Gittins, A Presence That Disturbs
spero is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 12:12 PM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
No I don't think women are lesser, which is why I don't think men should define them, or their roles in society, in the church or in the family.
I think you misunderstood me. I know you don't think women are lesser.

I was asking about the *roles*. You seem to object to women being limited to certain roles because *you* consider those roles less than the ones men are given. Am I wrong there?
cappuccinosmom is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
MittensKittens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
I think you misunderstood me. I know you don't think women are lesser.

I was asking about the *roles*. You seem to object to women being limited to certain roles because *you* consider those roles less than the ones men are given. Am I wrong there?
I don't think the point is that those roles being lesser. I think that the point is a lack of choice, or more specifically those roles being *forced* upon women. Indeed those roles are generally seen as less important by society as a whole, although I don't think that is accurate.

I'm Olivia. I blog about physiological childbirth, homebirth, and unassisted homebirth!
MittensKittens is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 12:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
MittensKittens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
What about divorced and single mamas, who are pretty much forced into the leadership role in their family? Are they supposed to just reject it? Go out and find another man to provide?
I didn't mention this, because I want to keep the discussion more general, but I am a single mom myself - though I don't particularly like that term because of the prejudices that are attached to it in some parts of society. I am a solo mom. I choose to parent on my own. I used donor insemination to create my two children. Interestingly enough, I have received nothing but praise for that particular choice from "my" priest, although I know there would be many more to condemn that choice. Some might view that as a sin. I guess that is another discussion though

I'm Olivia. I blog about physiological childbirth, homebirth, and unassisted homebirth!
MittensKittens is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off