I have a new article up in this month's issue of the Next Wave Ezine called Welcoming the Awakened Woman. Go check it out and leave comments if you want. (And yes, for those who are wondering, I do see the irony of this article written and submitted weeks ago appearing right now given other recent conversations.)

Labels: Gender Issues, Personal

A couple of weeks ago a friend sent me a link to a blog where a fundamentalist woman was posting about a woman's true place in a biblical worldview. Her thoughts went beyond complementarian to the "women exist to serve men in the home by popping out babies" extreme. Apparently women can't think, can't question, and can never ever seek equality because God forbids it. In the comments it was concluded that feminism was created by Satan and that the term Christian Feminist is an oxymoron because according to God, they just can't exist. While I was amused by the idea that according to God I have no ontological reality (and yes, I know she meant that if one is a feminist one obviously can't be saved), it was still disturbing to hear women parroting the propaganda of oppression. I know it is her belief system and that it has meaning for her, but the fact that she isn't allowed to encounter different viewpoints is indicative of the reality for too many women in the church.

So why am I bringing this up? Geoff over at Amateur Theology has asked a genuine question as to what is a Christian Feminist. He writes, "It sounds from the implication of the title that I’m having trouble reconciling Christianity with feminism. The truth, I’m afraid is that I’m far more ignorant than that. I just don’t have a solid grasp on a) what feminism really means in the here and now, and b) how that interplays with people’s faith."

Makeesha has provided a great response and the comments there have sparked some good exploration of the term "feminist". I'll include here my contribution to the comments.

Feminist is a hard word because it is usually used as a negative label that is applied as a means to ridicule and dismiss. I’ve been in groups where generally open minded people actually say things like “well, I don’t think anyone here would go so far as to call themselves a feminist…” As if being a feminist is the most extreme out there thing one can be.

I do understand that there are various streams/waves of feminism and while I have serious issues with some of them (the ones that hate men or think that sexual openness means equality), I am not willing to give up the entire history of the movement because of some fringe views (kinda like I feel about Christianity). I am a feminist because I am a Christian. I believe all people are created in the image of God and are therefore worthy as imagebearers. We are all called to serve God in the ways we are called (in ministry, work, the home, school…) and to say otherwise is to stifle the will of God. Since it has been women who have generally been seen as inferior, I think feminism is necessary to overcome that lie.

In many ways, I would rather be a “peopleist” and work for all people to be allowed to be the people God made them to be. Men and women should not be fit into the molds of gender stereotypes and should be respected for who they are. But I think the goals of feminism still have a long way to go to just get basic respect for women established.

I know I've posted this graphic before, but I think it represents the historical tradition of feminism that I respect. There has been much achieved by the strong women who put it all on the line to get basic rights for women. Basic rights that as a Christian who loves God and respects how he created people I don't understand how they could be denied. But denied they have been along with much more. I recently re-read Virginia Woolf's classic A Room of One's Own and was shocked at how little has changed in the past 80 years for women. We still have loud and powerful men asserting that they know women are inferior and detailing for us all that we are good for in this world. Our voice is still not heard in many circles, especially in the church. And it is still a struggle to get the average person to acknowledge that these issues even matter. For many out there there just seem to be way more important things to care about than how women are perceived and treated. I think there are a lot of things that should be more important, but getting basic decency, rights, and respect for women seems fairly important to me.

So I am a feminist. I think women are people too. I think we are worthy of respect and human rights. I think God is big enough to use whoever he wants to serve him. And I will stand up with feminists against those who out of fear or hatred try to tell God otherwise.

Labels: Culture, Gender Issues

Gender rant to follow.

So I don't hide the fact that I own the label "feminist." I know that in many circles feminist is the "f-word" and those who use it despised. And yes, I know that there are different waves and types of feminists. I get that. It's complicated.

And I also get that one of the reasons feminism is so despised is because some feminists have exchanged misogyny for misandry. Instead of seeking equality of the sexes or even (the preferred imho) respect for all peoples, they promote women as better than men or seek to ridicule, deride, and humiliate men. For the record, I don't support that sort of feminism. Anything that is based on hurting others in the name of selfish ambition is wrong. No question there.

But.

Sometimes I do wonder if the whole "walk a mile in another's shoe" approach might be helpful. For some men it might just take being treated in the way they treat women for the message of equality to get across to them. And I'm not just talking about being the minority at events, getting talked over in conversations or having to wear the prosthetic pregnant belly either. I'm talking about the subtle (sometimes) sexual objectification of women. What if when a women got up to speak at an event, her husband was introduced only in reference to his physical appearance? And I thank Mike, my handsome and sexy husband for his support in being here with me tonight.... Or what if after a man preached, the congregants focused not on the content of his sermon but on the fact that his shirt really wasn't a good color for him? Or how about expressing surprise that a well known women could manage to find such an attractive and intelligent husband? Could we try that for awhile? Do you think it would make a difference (or just backfire and feed the male ego?)

I guess I'm just sick of the references to women that while intending to be complements just continue to objectify and oppress us. It is not a novel thing that a woman is intelligent. And I know I am not a "beautiful" person, so it gets really demeaning when that is how I am referred to - did the person even bother to get to know me or did they just go with the old standby of commenting on a woman's body? Do men really not get how belittling that can be? So I just think it could be a fun experiment to turn things around and treat men the way they treat us. Even if it doesn't change things, it could still be interesting. A science experiment perhaps.

(and yes, in case you were wondering, listening to Gwen Stefani's 'Hollaback Girl' prompted this post. shake them bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S....)

Labels: Gender Issues

I recently started reading Postcolonial Imagination & Feminist Theology by Kwok Pui-lan. The book is stretching me in many ways as it forces me to view my faith through an utterly foreign lens. It's a good thing, but it can be a tad overwhelming at points. More on all that later. I just wanted to share tonight the words the author uses to open the first chapter. She writes -

I have been reflecting on my long intellectual journey to "struggle to know." Why is knowing a struggle? It is a struggle because you have to spend years learning what others told you is important to know, before you acquire the credentials and qualifications to say something about yourself. It is a struggle because you have to affirm first that you have something important to say and that your experience counts.

I have no clue if this is something that white western men can understand experientially (if it is my apologies for negating your journey), but this is the story I have lived and that I have heard told to me by others. It's the struggle women face when they attempt to have a voice or be a leader. When the world that is constructed for us looks one way, but our experiences and our self awareness reveal something else entirely, it is more than just difficult to find our place in that world. When all that we know about life, history, religion is slanted in a certain direction, to step up and use our voice is not such as easy thing. When to just be ourselves challenges all that is accepted, holy and dear in the world, it becomes all that much harder to speak out and attempt to make a difference. When we are mocked, labeled, and dismissed for believing that our experience counts, it truly is an ongoing struggle.

Labels: Gender Issues, Theology

So to combine my mommy blogging and my rants on gender issues, I give you the Sippy Cup Exposé. I was looking at Emma's sippy cups recently and noticed that we had a set of Playtex sippy cups that seriously played into gender stereotypes. The cups are pink and blue. The blue cup displays fish (in a school) undergoing academic pursuits. They are learning the ABC's, looking at a globe, and using a ruler. The pink cup on the other hand has personified teacups, fruit, and flowers. WTF!

I am so sick of being faced with gender specific assumptions when I get anything for Emma. The whole pink and blue thing is everywhere - it's hard to avoid exposing her to the idea that pink=girls and blue=boys. All the clothes are pink and purple covered in flowers, hearts, princesses, or ballet shoes. And now the sippy cups get involved too. So what does it matter that I let her use the blue=academic/intellectual cup? She knows that the pink one is for girls and so sees that girls are associated with tea parties and flowers while boys are associated with learning and school. I'm sure people will say that I'm overreacting and am too sensitive, but I'm just finding it really difficult to avoid imparting to my daughter oppressive gender roles. Does the world really have to promote cultural stereotypes on freaking sippy cups? This gets more annoying everyday...

Labels: Emma, Gender Issues, parenting

I haven't read the book pictured here, or the widely popular She Can't Even Play the Piano. I throw away the denominational fliers I get for "pastor's wives" retreats. When we started in this whole church planting adventure, the thing I was most horrified by was that I would be a pastor's wife. Of course I was reacting to stereotypes and my limited experiences, but whatever a pastor's wife was - that was not me.

I didn't want my life, my personality, defined for me by others. I didn't want to be merely what others expected me to be. I am myself and being a "pastor's wife" should do nothing to change that. It helped that Mike and I are ministry partners doing this church planting thing together. I'm not just some invisible support beam that arranges the coffee behind my mask of unfaltering allegiance to every word that drips from my husband's mouth. We plan together, make decisions together, and share responsibilities like preaching. As a person I am going to have questions and doubts and am not going to hide those because I am a pastor or pastor's wife. When I think something is full of crap, I'm going to say that. I have no interest in being told what mold I'm supposed to be fitting into. I think the mold is stupid to begin with. (how's that for a thoughtful critique).

But apparently, the struggle to maintain a personal identity is a major problem for many pastor's wives. There are numerous books on how to be a good pastor's wife (or at least on how not to go insane as one). Most of them focus on how to be yourself while being the person everyone expects you to be. Did they ever stop to think that it is because of whacked out advice like that that women are reading those sorts of books at all? And of course, everyone's favorite go-to guy for sexist quotes, Mark Driscoll, has even suggested a few things that will help make a pastor's wife's life easier and less stressful. He writes -


"What can be done to help the pastors' wife?

* She needs a clearly defined and guarded role.
* She needs some help with the kids and house.
* She needs some help getting to and from church on Sundays.
* She needs a designated parking place.
* She needs a handful of safe relationships with other godly women.
* She needs to choose her own friends and define her own relationships.
* She needs to see her first jobs as Christian, wife, and mother, not free hire for the church."
http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2007-07-17_death_by_ministry_part_10


Wow my own parking place at church, that would really make my life easier. And to be allowed (within my protected and guarded role) to choose my friends! What am I - a grown woman or a kindergartner? Maybe it would have helped if he had added to the list - "She needs to have a husband who doesn't say that a pastor's sexual sins are the fault of his wife not looking hot." But that might be asking too much.

These books and this advice is so condescending it's embarrassing. Sure the stereotypes and the expectations have caused problems, but I would think that allowing a women to be herself would be more useful than defining and restricting her role more. It's a messed up system, the whole church culture is a messed up system. We've created this ultra-ritualized pageant where people are expected to act in certain roles. It would be amusing if it wasn't so very sad. So do I have a point here? I don't know. Just that I refuse to be labeled with any of the expectations of being a pastor's wife. And that I feel sorry for the women who are confined by that role.

Labels: Church, Gender Issues

Tomorrow August 26 is Women's Equality Day in the United States.

August 26th is the anniversary of national woman suffrage. Across the seventy-two years between the first major women’s rights conference at Senecca Falls, New York, in 1848, and the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, thousands of people participated in marches through cities like New York and Washington DC, wrote editorials and pamphlets, gave speeches all over the nation, lobbied political organizations, and held demonstrations with the goal of achieving voting rights for women. Women also picketed the White House with questions like, “Mr. President, what are you going to do about woman’s suffrage?” “Mr. President, how long must women wait for liberty?” This was the first time in history that a group of people picketed the White House.

The woman suffrage amendment was introduced for the first time to the United States Congress on January 10, 1878. It was re-submitted numerous times until finally in June 1919 the amendment received approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Over the following year the suffragists spent their time lobbying states in order to have the amendment ratified by the required two-thirds of the states. On August 24th, Tennessee, the final state needed for ratification, narrowly signed the approval by one vote. The vote belonged to Harry Burn, who heeded the words of his mother when she urged him to vote yes on suffrage. The U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby signed the amendment into law on August 26, 1920.

So its been 87 years since one vote decided that women's voices were not inferior to men's - at least when it came to the voting booth. The years since have demonstrated that the political decree has had some positive impact, but has done little to alter the prejudice of hard hearts. Women are still despised by some, still paid less, still held back at work, and still forced into stereotypes. To echo Elizabeth Cady Stanton, equality is seeking for women to be judged by who they are as an individual and not solely by a relationship they may or may not be involved in (as she said "In discussing the sphere of man we do not decide his rights as an individual, as a citizen, as a man by his duties as a father, a husband, a brother, or a son, relations some of which he may never fill."). I would expand that we are whole people and the relationships we are involved in help create who we (women and men) are as individuals, but are not the sum total of who we are. So I am a wife and a mother (and daughter, sister, and friend), but those relationships do not define what roles I am capable of fulfilling. All aspects of my life including my talents, intellect, and passions (as well as my relationships) form who I am. And I appreciate it when I am valued and respected for who I am holistically, and not just seen through the lens of mother, or wife (or college grad, or Pastor). So then, why is it that some corners of the church are the last place where the value of a person is recognized? Why is the call for an equal voice (in practice as well as theory) still an issue? It took 72 years of active campaigning for American women to be counted as worthwhile people, and it has taken (so far) 87 years to get that message heard. And while much has been achieved, there is still a very long way to go.

Labels: Gender Issues

So I actually got the chance to get out and see The Bourne Ultimatum. Fun movie, this one speaks to issues of our day but with a lot of crazy camera angles. One element that stood out to me was the implicit gender role assumptions present in the movies. In the Bourne universe, the guys are always the kick-butt action figures. They are the ones with the skills, the ability to fight, and the driving urge to win. The women, although generally intelligent, are weak and in need of protection. In this latest installment the weakness of even the intelligent women in positions of power is preyed upon by the men's need to win. Granted in the end the "emotional weakness" of the women proved beneficial for they were the ones who demonstrated a conscience and chose to do what was right (as opposed to what gave them power). Although full of assumptions and stereotypes, I found it a telling commentary on the need for a balanced perspective that men in violent positions of power often lack.

But I was also reminded in contrast of the typical role women play in action movies. Rarely are women recurring intelligent characters. Instead women are often portrayed as the kick-butt hero who is exceeding sexy. The appeal is the sex factor and the novelty of a woman doing what is assumed to be a man's job. Far more common though are women as helpless, disposable, love interests sex objects. They add some emotional content to the plot, stretch the story a bit, but mostly serve as eye-candy. And there is a new pretty face of the moment by the time the sequel comes out. I remember as a kid wondering what happened to the female characters in movie sequels. Why did Indiana Jones have a "new girl" in each movie? Are women really that worthless that they can be discarded at will?

I do see some changes beginning to occur (not that I watch all that many movies). Sometimes the love interest is drawn out over multiple movies (Spiderman or Pirates) - but this may be more the result of studies signing multiple movie deals upfront than a step towards equality. And I've heard a rumor that the new Indiana Jones movie is bringing back the woman from Raiders of the Lost Ark (not that I even remember her name). We shall see. I know one really shouldn't expect much from action movies, but I get sick of constantly seeing negative stereotypes being reinforced in the name of entertainment. Of course there are "intelligent" movies out there that do a much better job at demonstrating women as more than sex objects, but are those who could benefit from more respectful portrayals of women really watching those movies?

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, Gender Issues

As I recently read Richard Foltz's Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World's Religions I came upon a paragraph that gave me pause. It was a short paragraph in the introductory section on the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) influence on the ancient Near-East, but it connected me to themes I have wrestled with for some time now. The paragraphs reads -

One type of pact performed by the PIEs was the mithra, a covenant between two parties, the other being a varuna or individual oath... In keeping with their belief about the supernatural inhering in abstract notions as well as in material things, Indo-Iranians personified the spiritual qualities (mainyus) of these verbal pacts as powerful and important dieties. The veracity of one's oral proclamations could be put to the test, through fire ordeal in the case of mithras ans water in the case of varunas, which may explain why Mithra and Varuna, who were responsible for sparing the truthful and punishing the unworthy, became such important gods.

Now I was familiar with Mithra - he only became a major deity in a number of the cultures influenced by the Indo-Europeans as they spread across the ancient Near-East. You know stuff like being subsumed into Zoroastrianism as the savior figure who was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave witnessed by shepherds. But this was the first I had ever read of the ancient concepts of oath taking that evolved into personified deities. I was especially intrigued by the water ordeal to test the veracity of a personal oath. Apparently this ordeal involved either immersing a person underwater (if they survived they were innocent) or forcing a person to drink the "golden oath water" which brings out the truth by causing jaundice. An ancient practice common in the cultures that settled the ancient near-East, predating Zoroaster, Moses, and possibly Abraham.

Why did this brief paragraph give me pause? Because it addressed the cultural underpinnings of a Biblical practice that I have struggled to understand. When I first encountered the description of "the test for an unfaithful wife" as described in Numbers 5:11-31 I was appalled. Here is a ceremony that reeked more of magic than faith and seemed to be extremely arbitrary and unfair to the woman. I just could not understand how this was a God given law. To have a woman whose husband was jealous drink a strange mixture and if she was guilty she would waste away and if she was innocent she could have children didn't fit even within the Old Testament worldview I knew. I recall being involved in numerous discussions about this particular passage a few years ago. Many people took the - "it's in the Bible so God must have put it there so I can't question (or be bothered by) it" route. Others tried to reinterpret it as being a completely meaningless ritual that could never work and would therefore always prove the women innocent. God obviously couldn't change the culture and stop making men be jealous and possessive of women, or improve conditions for women who are thrown out or stoned for adultery (or suspicion thereof), so he gave the Jews this pointless test to protect women - just another way that God is actually pro-woman. But it still didn't make sense.

So I find it helpful to see that this practice has its roots not in some God given new mandate, but in the common cultural rituals of the lands the Jews inhabited. Of course it seems magical and pagan because that is what it is. That leaves the issue for those who do think the Bible is inspired to understand why God would want his people using a ritual that derived from animistic deities. But even still, I find the ideas of this being a "redeemed" practice less disturbing than the assumption that this is a God given practice. But maybe that's just me coming to terms with letting go of my evangelical conceptions regarding scripture.

Labels: Bible, Gender Issues, History, Theology

In the recent discussion on Women in the Emerging Church, the issue of gender pronouns for God arose and I was asked to clarify my thoughts on that topic. I've discussed this issue often over at the Emerging Women blog and my contribution to the Faith in a Dress edition of the Porpoise Diving Life ezine provided a brief overview as well. But I've never really addressed it here on my personal blog. Why? Because this is an issue that freaks a lot of people out. They think that to even discuss this topic implies that one has left behind any traditional construction of Christianity. I thought that way for a long time. But this is a topic that is a given for many in mainline churches and has started to become a serious issue for women from evangelical backgrounds. I've been forced to wrestle through it. So to add another long and controversial post to this week's offerings (and in no way do I claim to even attempt a comprehensive treatment of this issue), here we go.

The issue at hand is the names we use to refer to God. The majority of the names we use as English speakers are gendered masculine. Although we are generally okay with some of the neutral names and metaphors for describing God, people often get very offended when God is referred to using the feminine names and images (even though such are present in scripture and church history). How we speak about God is a topic that has received a lot of attention recently. With Peter Rollins' well known book How (not) to Speak of God and Bruce Benson's lesser-known (but more in-depth) Graven Ideologies, the concepts of what we know about God and how we express that have become popular topics of conversation. The ideas those authors present (based on the implications of postmodern philosophers such as Derrida, Levinas, and Marion) revolve around the idea that any attempt to speak of God is idolatry - conceptual idolatry, but idolatry nonetheless. We are not God. To claim to know or understand (or even fully name) God is an act of idolatry. Since we cannot have absolute knowledge of God (that would in fact make us God), we attempt to describe God using the things we know (language, images, metaphors). All of those attempts at comprehending that which cannot be comprehended must be held lightly. Any attempt to assume that our names or metaphors for God actually define God become idolatry. We start to worship our idea (name, image, metaphor) for God instead of actually worshiping God. Of course we cannot not speak of God, so we must make use of metaphors and names. The Bible is full of descriptions for God - some we have turned into names but they are all simply descriptions of God - small attempts to understand aspects of the incomprehensible. Creator. Light. Shalom. Midwife. Provider. Father. Potter. Refuge. Sustainer. Mother. Healer... None of those names from scripture define God. To choose one as the God we worship is to choose to worship an idol of our own creation. But we use the multitude of names to describe God - to describe that which we cannot grasp but are compelled to worship.

To assume that God is gendered - that God is either male or female - turns God into an idol. God is neither and yet God can be described as both. Of all the ways that we speak of God this is the one that carries the most emotional weight. Rollins brushed aside this issue in his book, saying that it has already been addressed well by others. I found that infinitely frustrating because while this idea has been addressed extensively in mainline circles there is hardly anyone talking about it in evangelical and emerging circles. But to only see God as Father and to deny that God is also Mother not only ignores scripture and creates an idol in the form of a male, but it reinforces negative stereotypes about women. Why can't we discuss God's feminine characteristics? Is there something wrong with women? Are we inferior to men? Are we somehow more sinful or more sexual or less intelligent than men? If the metaphor of Father can be used for God what does it reveal about our underlying assumptions about women if we cannot also use the metaphor of Mother?

It is generally at this point that many people respond - "Of course God has no gender, and I see how feminine terms could be used to describe God, but I'm really just more comfortable continuing to use the male names and I don't want anyone to think I'm into that whole Divine Feminine/Goddess worship stuff that's so popular these days and it's not hurting anyone right?" But, would it change things to know that there are many many women out there who have rejected Christianity because all they see represented is a male God? They do not see themselves relating to a male God and they do not see themselves as being created in God's image if God is male. Then there are those women in the church who see themselves as inferior to men because they are female and are not made if God's image. The logic goes - if God is male then male must be better. I just finished reading a book, When God Was A Woman (full of serious issues, but interesting nonetheless) that is a diatribe against the domination of the Hebrews and their male God over the goddess cultures in the Ancient Near-East. This book is over 30 years old and is still considered a classic among feminsts. The gender of God is a big issue for a lot of people. My question is whether our comfort is more important than truth or more important than all those people who have rejected Christianity for unnecessary reasons?

This is a topic that I have personally struggled through over the last couple of years. I went from thinking that using feminine names for God was just a silly (and offensive) game for extreme feminists, to seeing the need to question my default names for God. This isn't just about equality, this is much bigger than that. It is about avoiding conceptual idolatry and naming God rightly (while being aware of the tension that we can never actually do so). To default to male names for God limits my understanding of who God is and unintentionally excludes some from the communion of believers. It isn't a game or a side issue or a red herring, it reflects the center of my faith - the God I believe in. It does take effort to not just use my default name for God (father). It isn't comfortable to say mother or healer. But I've realized that I have to - for my faith and for the faith of others. It's scary. It makes some people angry. But it also opens doors to those who have been left on the outside for far too long.

Labels: Gender Issues, Theology

To clarify my post below and to address (some of) Brother Maynard's good questions (since this is way too long to post in the comments). Yes, the last post was a rant and therefore did make use of hyperbole. I know that there are men in the EC who do support women (and there are some who don't). But nevertheless there is still an ongoing perception by women that the Emerging Church doesn't support women. I've somehow stumbled into a strange position where I think I hear more about that than many people (which of course influences my perception). Because of my involvement with Emerging Women a lot of people seem to think I'm an authority on women in the emerging church. So I get emails, questions about women in the EC, confused inquiries about what is going on, and complaints, lots of complaints. Responding to the women who contact me is weird because I am not the authority (not that one exists) and the EC is such a fluid thing that one can never give a definitive answer for why things are the way they are. That being said, I do try to respond, but often in responding I feel torn. Half the time I do my best to defend the EC and explain that anyone who wants to step up to lead is more than welcome to and all that. But the rest of the time I find myself sympathizing with the frustration and confusion these women are expressing.

So what am I hearing and who am I hearing it from? First I should say that I have had good conversations with women in leadership within Emergent (all from mainline backgrounds) who don't think there are any problems at all. I respect their experiences, but also hear too much from women who do think otherwise. From other mainliners who have already been through the fight to gain respect as women in the church and who have pushed for inclusivity in the church, I hear a good deal of shock at how patriarchal the EC is. They only see male figureheads, male authors, male bloggers, male speakers, and worse yet only hear male language used in reference to believers and to God. To them that is really offensive and implies that women are not wanted or valued. They have been through the struggle before and as much good that they see in the EC, they aren't sure if its worth it to join in with a group that is so far behind in regards to women. Why go where they are "obviously" not wanted? Then there are the evangelicals. Many of those women are just beginning to believe that they can have a voice in the church and are still being met with much opposition in their churches and families. They want to find a place to belong in the EC because it has helped them so much, but are often afraid to join what looks like the typical boys club they are used to experiencing or are unsure if they are even welcome in that world. They want to know before they sign on that they will be accepted for who they are (and not condemned because they are female) and that the invitation to join is for them as well. So while the official message may be that yes of course women are respected and welcomed, if they do not hear that message or see it displayed (actually lived out) then they do not feel like they are wanted. This of course does not apply to all women interested in the EC, but is a theme I've heard too often to ignore.

So why isn't the message of welcome and inclusion being heard (if it does exist)? The most common answer still is because most of the authors and speakers are male - they are the voice that gets heard no matter who else is out there. Even at the recent Midwest Emergent Gathering where we attempted to be very deliberate about giving women a voice, the upfront presence was still predominantly male. And we got flack for it, big time. It's not that there is anything wrong with the male leaders, they are great guys who have taught us wonderful things and have helped us along on our faith journey. I personally greatly appreciate the work they have done and the contributions they have made. But as popular as they are and for as many people who are desperate to be mentored (in even the smallest ways) by them, we women don't have a place. We don't fit in with the boys clubs and the male bonding experiences (which is what even many public events seem to be). There are no female "heros" that self-identify as emerging that we can look up to and be mentored by. The names that women in the EC look to in respect like Anne Lamott, Phyllis Tickle, Sue Monk Kidd, and Diane Butler Bass do not (to the best of my knowledge) label themselves emerging. So if there is no one to mentor us in the EC (or even to guide and open the doors), then women begin to wonder why they should even want to be a part of it at all.

Then there are the negative messages that (often unintentionally) get sent. And yes like it or not, there are a number of people who still think Mark Driscoll is part of the EC. They hear his sexist comments and assume that the entire EC agrees with him. But less radically there are constant messages that tell women you are not wanted here (even when they do not intend to do so). When the two most popular blogs on the Emerging Church (Jesus Creed and TallSkinnyKiwi) have ongoing debates on not only whether or not women are permitted in ministry but which also imply that the jury is still out on whether women are inferior to men or if we are even made in God's image, the message gets sent (loudly) that we are not respected, valued or welcome in the EC. When, like at last year's Gathering (and I've heard of similar occurrences elsewhere), women plan a workshop and then a big name male plans the exact same workshop at the exact same time (which then everyone goes to), the message is sent - your voice is unwanted and worthless. When at the Off The Map Conference last year the panel of women leaders were set in front of the crowd so that they could publicly ask questions of the male experts the message is sent - you women are inferior to us men (and granted the conference planers there admitted what a disaster that session was). And when at just about every single emerging event, it is extremely rare to hear gender inclusive language, women who have become used to being included in the broader culture are left feeling very alienated. And I don't think anyone intends to send the message to women that they aren't welcome, but that is what is perceived at any rate.

And what helps complicate the negative (albeit unintentional) messages is the silence by the men, the "yes,but..." excuses, the vague talk about Biblical gender roles, and the lack of positive action. When certain prominent leaders take a stand against women, it takes other popular leaders speaking out against hate language for that message to be overpowered. Then, saying "yes, but..." to women is like sending the message that we aren't worth your time or energy. You want to help us, but it's too complicated and might take too much work. Instead of dwelling on all the problems that might possibly arise and using that as an excuse to inaction, could you please just give us your unequivocal support for once? And when you mention "gender roles" most women mentally download some version of the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen scenario that has been drilled into us for years. Define what you really mean. And by the way most women do not want to be told what they should be like by a man. We want to be accepted for who we are no matter how closely we fit some system of culturally defined roles. Using language like that is patronizing and demeaning.

So what would actively working to improve things look like? A few biggies that might help - Make sure that women are asked to speak at your events. Get women publishing contracts. Work jointly with women on the big writing projects and event planning teams. Get used to using gender inclusive language. And don't always refer to God as male (not that you have to go so far as using the feminine names for God, just that you don't always default to the masculine). Add women to your blogroll. Discuss the ideas women are talking about on your blogs, in your sermons, and in your books. Stick your neck out and publicly stand up against sexism and demeaning language. Publicly admit that you respect women and support them in ministry for that matter. It isn't "affirmative action" or "lowering your standards" as I have heard it described. And some of it might sound silly if you do it already (but it obviously hasn't been heard). But it does involve being deliberate about being inclusive. And I know that there are a lot of guys out there who are doing this already. But when there is still an overwhelming perception on the part of women that they are not welcome more obviously needs to be done.

And I will say again, I am not the "authority" to address this issue. I'm just reflecting on my experiences and my somewhat unique position of hearing from a wide spectrum of women involved in the EC. Not all women feel this way or think there is a problem. I know that. But it is for the many that do, that I made the plea to the men of the EC to loudly and without reservation demonstrate their support for women in the Emerging Church.

Labels: Emerging Church, Emerging Women, Gender Issues

So after reading Dave Fitch's article on why he isn't an egalitarian over at the Church and Postmodern Culture blog (and then Makeesha's great response), I am just left wondering what the deal is really with men in the Emerging Church. So you get these high profile men writing stuff that equality isn't biblical (but that they still support women in ministry) and that women should be allowed to live out their God given roles. One one level that might sound good, but it's just the same old oppression in a different packaging. Others tell me point blank that they won't waste energy working to help women in ministry because our ministry structures aren't biblical to begin with. So why waste time working to get women involved in a system that they are working to change? But the obvious problem is that the system is not changing, the boys keep it going as is, and the women remain on the sidelines. Others give an ample space for the fight over whether women are fully human on their blogs, but never really stick their necks out and actually support women. And then when certain leaders degrade and objectify women as mere sex objects, the men of the church remain silent or pat him on the back. WTF? This is the response we get from men in the Emerging Church.

What are you guys afraid of? Controversy? Having to share power? Having to talk to women? I just don't get it. When they say they "support" women, but don't actually ever do anything to about I have to question if they really do respect women. Are we just a nuisance that they can placate with kind sounding words? If they give enough platitudes and asides (I really do support women in ministry, really) will we shut up and pretend that everything is okay? I know a number of women who have given up on the emerging church as a joke because of the way women continue to be treated.

Hey boys guess what. We don't want to be treated like a piece of meat or piece of art. We don't want to treated like second class citizens and be endlessly tokenized or debated. We want to be a part of the conversation and respected for who we are. We can have our own conversations, but it would be really nice of you to make just the slightest effort to treat us as human beings and let the world know about it.

So what I would like to see is one, just one, male leader in the Emerging Church come out in complete support of women. No debating our worth. No stereotyping us into assumed roles. But complete and open support with a commitment to action to do whatever you can to help the women's voices be heard. That isn't too much to ask is it?

Labels: Emerging Church, Emerging Women, Gender Issues

This year marks the halfway mark for the Millennium Development Goals. The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 – form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and all the world’s leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.

Well it's 2007 and we are halfway to 2015. As aid groups are saying, "its halftime and this isn't a game we can afford to lose." But even though we are halfway there in regards to time, the goals are not halfway met. There has been progress, but not of the leaps and bounds kind. What is being found though is that we are seeing advances in Goal #3 - promoting gender equality and empowering women. That's not to say that rampant oppression of women doesn't still exist, but that in certain areas women are being empowered.

From reports I heard at the Jubilee Conference what is occurring is that in so-called developing nations women are becoming a more visible presence in politics. They are taking seats in Parliaments, being appointed to government positions, and occasionally even ruling countries. In fact the percentage of women in high level government positions is the same in sub-Saharan Africa as it is in the USA. Granted that percentage is still under 20%, but apparently that is huge progress. What is even more interesting is that it is being reported that the general population's acceptance of women in positions of authority is much higher in those countries than it is in the USA. Over here we are still quibbling over whether or not a woman or a black man can be president and these other countries are just doing it.

So here's to empowering women. May this goal be met and surpassed around the world and here in the States.

Labels: Gender Issues, Politics, Social Justice

As the author of blogs, especially the Emerging Women blog, I get a lot of email. There are the notes of encouragement and those seeking advice, and then there are the hateful, the judgemental, and the creepy. I've learned to ignore the numerous Christians who insist on telling me why exactly I am not a Christian and am going to hell. Those are a dime a dozen and get old really quick. Then true to my nature of being fly-paper for freaks, I get this email. Since part of the purpose of this blog is to expose sexism and misogyny in all its forms in order to awaken those who are deluded into thinking its a non-issue I decided to post it here -

Ms. / Mrs. (not sure which to use and certainly wouldn't want to offend) Clawson,

I stumbled upon your work at onehandclapping, accidentally and somehow, I was compelled to read. And I read... and read... and read... and read... I was interested in a lot of what you were writing, simply because I found it entertaining. Yes, I said entertaining. I can detect your scorn. I can read into your frustration. You obviously feel angry because it would seem that a large portion of people in the world view your gender simply as subservient baby making machines. I suppose you would be angry at men who beat their wives, commit adultery and generally look down upon the female segment of society. I suppose that it would anger a woman such as yourself to hear people talking about how men want to know how they can have sex with their wives at least once a day. When I say "such as yourself", I mean a woman who despises sex to begin with. I suppose that a woman who is interested in "planting a church" is interested in where the bible has placed woman in the world.

Funny, doesn't Genesis lay the groundwork for all Christianity? Doesn't the creation story specify where God placed woman in the world and doesn't Genesis explain that the woman committed the original sin, which set the stage for all of mankind? And lets get to the nuts and bolts of it all. Many theologians and prominent religious figures argue that the original sin was an act of infidelity.

So, where am I going with this? Simply put, you have issues. Issues you don't seem to want to address, Issues that you keep tucked away behind the veil of religion and feminism. You sound like a very negative person to me. Maybe as a child you witnessed a violent act against a woman, or perhaps even fell victim to a violent act yourself. Perhaps this act included sexual indescretions which by virtue of witnessing or experiencing the act, you were stripped of your innocence forever.

So, instead of talking with a proffessional about your issues, you want to stand up and scream at the top of your lungs for anyone to hear, anyone to listen. And what better vehicle to do that than the Internet. (Insert appropriate title of address) Clawson; please try not to be so negative towards men. Men are wonderful, creatures who give life. Without the mans seed the plant cannot grow. Men are wonderful creatures who nurture and protect. Man bashing is surely a path towards lesbianism. Wait......... did I stumble onto something here? Ah, maybe not... At any rate, please, be kind and just have sex at least once a day with a man, any man will do.... maybe he will knock that chip of your shoulder!

TaTa!

A man in need of some good sex from a woman like you.
mkschuette@comcast.net

The first thing thought of after I read this letter is that famous quote by Rececca West, "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." To stand up against violence and oppression of women or to resist sexual objectification apparently makes some men uncomfortable. As creepy as the email is, I was amused that the Victorian era modes of "dealing" with intelligent and outspoken women were still being suggested. During that period of introducing domestic roles for women, the women who were not content to mindlessly do nothing in life were assumed to have medical or psychological disorders. This disease of female hysteria the men conjured up was treated in part by forcing women to avoid any stimulation of the mind and to accept their domestic role as sexual object. Feminists - those who used their voice and called for equal rights for women were often dismissed as suffering from hysteria. This historical perspective is illustrated beautifully in the letter which explores why Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote her groundbreaking and haunting story "The Yellow Wallpaper" that challenged the practice of "diagnosing" women who wanted to use their voice and write as "hysterical" and forcing them into mindless rest cures and domestic roles. Obviously for some men, science, human rights, and equality haven't progressed much since then. They apparently would prefer all women to be silent, mindless, and readily available for their sexual pleasure.

Part of me hopes that this email was a joke instead of a perfect illustration as to why the fight for women's rights is still necessary. But I've encounter such warped attitudes far too often to pretend that this isn't a true sentiment. It is depressing that there still exist men who misunderstand women so completely and who so blatantly objectify us. Men that try to dismiss the cry for equality and justice by labeling women as the one's with medical and psychological issues. It is depressing and just a little bit creepy.

Labels: Gender Issues

Sorry for the silence here the last couple of days, I was at the Jubilee USA Grassroots Conference over the weekend. It was an exhausting weekend and I feel overwhelmed with information. At the same time, it was revitalizing and inspirational to be surrounded by so many people who have truly committed their lives to make this world a better place for everyone.

Jubilee USA exists to promote economic justice for the world, mostly through Debt Relief. They of course realize that to improve conditions worldwide debt relief is just one element that needs to happens, so they promote and partner with organizations that work on all eight of the Millennium Development Goals. But Jubilee's main focus is to end so-called third world debt. Most Americans are unaware of the need for debt relief at all. They hear the term "debt" and think of their maxed out credit cards. But Debt Relief refers to countries that have incurred millions of dollars in debt fron loans from other countries, the IMF, and the World Bank. The problem is that many of these loans were irresponsibly given, acquired (and squandered) illegally by dictators, or are remains of colonialism and the Cold War. These are debts that the people of these countries didn't ask for or approve (like South Africans having to pay back the loans that the Apartheid government used to fight anti-apartheid efforts) and now these countries are having to use up to 80% of their national budget to repay these debts and their insane interest rates. To come up with that money the countries have cut public education, health services, and stopped hiring doctors, nurses, and teachers. Most aid the country receives from Western countries just goes straight back to West in debt repayment. To put numbers to it - Nigeria has borrowed $5 billion, to date it has paid $16 billion and still owes $32 billion. There are a number of stories and reasons why these debts are wrong, but the effect is that they are keeping the poorest countries in this world in cycles of extreme poverty.

The Jubilee movement calls for a cancellation of these debts. They invoke the Biblical principle of Jubilee to forgive debts and break the chains of injustice. Why? Because the people of these countries don't owe and they shouldn't pay. Besides the fact that the principles on these debts have been paid already, these weren't their debts in the first place. A good way to help understand this is to imagine that someone stole your credit card, charged $10 billion in weapons on it and did all that before you were born. But for some reason you have to pay it all back, resulting in your children not being able to attend school, you not having clean water, and there not being health services available to you. To put a selfish spin on why cancel debts, if these countries don't have debt canceled the environmental degradation and political instability (potential for terrorism) increases. But most of all it should be a moral choice for all people of faith or conscious who claim to care for the least of these to do whatever we can to give all people a fighting chance at life and the basic rights they deserve.

So I got to spend the weekend hearing stories about debt relief, economic justice, and human rights. I knew most of the general ideas before, but got to learn the facts and the stories this weekend. I heard of the extreme injustices being perpetrated (Vulture Funds), attempts to stand up to injustice, and stories of hope from countries whose debt has already been cancelled. I met activists from around the world - a political cartoonist from Kenya, lobbyists from DC, a human rights watch journalist in exile from Columbia. We even heard from the Ecuadorian Finance Minister who came to report in how her country is choosing to stop making payments on their onerous debt so they can spend money on basic human services. As a country they are standing up to the World Bank and the IMF (and their puppetmasters the G8). They face serious legal, economic, and political (hopefully not military) dangers in doing so, but they choose to no longer be oppressed by the rich west.

I could share any number of stories - of both horror and hope. At this point, I realize the need more than ever to get the word out about these issues. It is the government that can effect change by canceling the debts (or pressuring the IMF and World Bank to do so). But it will take people telling their elected representative (they do represent us you know) to support morality and debt relief. As I posted last week a bipartisan bill was just introduced to Congress called the Jubilee Act. It's up to us to tell our Congresspeople to support it. Simple, easy, but something that most people (especially Christians) have an allergic reaction to (treating the government like the empire it pretends to be instead of the representative democracy it is).

I'm sure that I will be mentioning other aspects of this event on this blog in the future. I just want to conclude by mentioning something I realized during the conference. Exactly five years ago I was at another conference at Moody Bible Institute just a few blocks from the Loyola building I was at this weekend. Both events were "Christian" events (although I don't think Jews, Muslims and Atheists would have been welcomed at the Moody one). But what sticks in my memory from the Moody event is the insane amount of time given to discussing exactly what type of clothing the women at the conference were allowed to wear - what sort of swimsuit, the exact width tank top straps had to be, and whether or not it was okay to wear jeans in church). When such an "adventures in missing the point" defines who we are as Christians instead of seeking justice and proclaiming good news to the poor I rejoice to no longer be immersed in that sort of christian experience. For although I spent this past weekend hearing depressing and horrific stories of oppression and injustice, I came away more full of hope in God and the potential of a better world than I do from "ministry" conferences where the focus remains on stuff we should have gotten over a long time ago (accepting women's rights for example). I got to be (for once) in an environment where gender equality was assumed and not debated and racial and ethnic diversity was the norm. It was encouraging to see that such things actually do exist (as opposed to just being endlessly discussed and debated). I am very thankful to have had this opportunity this weekend and look forward to continuing to meet with the Chicago Jubilee group to build on the grassroots campaign for justice, mercy, and love.

Labels: Events, Gender Issues, mission, Personal, Politics, Social Justice

So another Facebook find, from the group ""I'm Not A Feminist, But...' Makes me want to bash my head against a wall!". There is such a fear of the f-word and an utter lack of historical perspective. The number of times I've heard "I'm not a feminist, but I support equal rights for women" and then some ridiculing of women who call themselves feminist follows. Is it just the easiest way to make fun of women (like that's a good thing)? Do people just not stop to think or are they really ignorant of what the legacy of feminism has given them? It's just sad. This video clip comes down on the ignorance side, I don't know if it's so pathetic it's funny or if its just really really sad.

Labels: Gender Issues

So I've posted about this over at Emerging Women, but I'll post something here too. Pam Hogeweide and Erin Word are the guest editors for the June issue of the Porpoise Diving Life e-zine ("Picking Up Where Purpose-Driven Peters Out"). This issue is called Progress: Faith in a Dress and is devoted "to the women who have been emerging from the shadows to engage in the fullness of their callings in the 21st century". A number of women contributed to the e-zine, and the newly created Faith in a Dress blog has a even wider selection of contributions by women on this topic.

I contributed a couple of articles to the issue - The Feminine Side of God and Why I Gave My Daughter a Strong Name. Go check them out along with all the other great articles by the women who contributed to this project.

Labels: Emerging Women, Gender Issues

A recent study being released states that military veterans are more than twice as likely to be in prison for sex crimes than are people without military experience. While veterans are less likely to be incarcerated in the first place, about a quarter of those sentences are for sex crimes against women are children. The article then claims that researchers are at a lose to understand why.

As soon as I read about these findings, I was reminded of the conversation of an Afgani woman I overhead where she discussed the American military's behavior in Afghanistan (read my blog post about it here). Another incident of cruel and senseless violence inflicted on a child.

And they really wonder why this is an issue?

When you take a group of people, mostly men, and teach them through intense indoctrination to objectify the Other of course stuff like this will happen. It takes seeing the Iraqis or Afganis as "the enemy" and not as real people in order to be able to kill them. If the soldiers didn't objectify others and instead saw that they were mothers, fathers, lovers, teachers, grandparents, and someone's child their ability to kill them would be compromised. They must be taught not to care, not to see the human face, and not to see life from the perspective of that other person. Alfie Kohn actually addresses this issue in his book Unconditional Parenting -

People who can - and do - think about how others experience the world are more likely to reach out and help those people - or, at a minimum, are less likely to harm them. Kafka once described war as a "monstrous failure of imagination". In order to kill, one must cease to see individual human beings and instead reduce them to abstractions such as "the enemy". One must fail to realize that each person underneath our bombs is the center of his universe just as you are the center of yours: He gets the flu, worries about his aged mother, likes sweets, falls in love - even though he lives half a world away and speaks a different language. To see things from his point of view is to recognize all the particulars that make him human, and ultimately it is to understand that his life is no less valuable than yours. Even in popular entertainments, we're not shown the bad guys at home with their children. One can cheer the death only of a caricature, not of a three-dimensional person.

Less dramatically, many of the social problems we encounter on a daily basis can be understood as a failure of perspective taking. People who litter, or block traffic by double-parking, or rip pages out of library books, seem to be locked into themselves, unable or unwilling to imagine how others will have to look at their garbage, or maneuver their cars around them, or fail to find a chapter they need.

And so while it pains me to read about it, I am not surprised that those who are taught to objectify others in order to kill them retain that mindset and apply it to other aspects of life. Combine the idea that women and children aren't "real people" with real feeling and lives but are instead seen as objects to be used with the military insistence of might makes right and one is left with conditions ripe for abuse. As this study shows that objectification of others and violent imposition of power over them is a sad reality.

What saddens me even more is that most people will assume that the solution to this problem is just to apply more of the same - have the bigger more powerful government impose harsher punishments on offenders. There will be no questioning of the military or their need to murder (that wouldn't be patriotic now would it?) I seriously doubt that lessons in perspective taking will ever catch on in our society, much less our military. So instead of being understood and appreciated as a person, those of us who have faced objectification must continue to live in fear.

Labels: Gender Issues, Politics, Social Justice, War

So I preached the Mother's Day sermon this morning (perfect way to honor moms - let them lead and don't make them cook). Thinking back over the Mother’s Day sermons I have heard at various points in my life - at best they were pathetic attempts to tell moms that they really are contributing something worthwhile to society and at worst were excuses to tell women why God doesn’t want them to work outside the home.

Obviously I wasn't interested in rubberstamping gender roles today. I didn't preach on what women have to be like or should be 'allowed' to be like. I just told stories. Stories of women, of mothers, who worked to make this world a better place. Stories that highlighted that often it is the women who are the only ones who can be heard and make a difference in certain situations.

We set the stage with the story of Naboth's vineyard from 1 Kings 21. As story of taking a stand against injustice.

We then noticed the striking parallels of that Biblical account with the modern day struggle of the women of the Niger Delta in their struggle against Chevron/Texaco.

But why stories of justice on Mother's Day? For that we told the story of the origins of Mother's Day in America which are rooted in mothers coming together to work for peace, justice, and equality. Women who see their identity as women and mothers (as human beings) as being more important than battle lines and nationality. As Julia Ward Howe wrote as she called for the first Mother's Day for Peace -

Mother's Day Proclamation - 1870
by Julia Ward Howe

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

To explore those themes we told a couple more stories of women who changed their world. First we looked at the Mothers of the Disappeared who stood up to the evil military regime in Argentina. Then we turned to the Congo and watched a short film about women who are making better lives for their families through literacy and community banking programs like WORTH (a global women's empowerment program).

I like telling stories. I like claiming the strength of these women to inspire.

Happy Mother's Day

Labels: Gender Issues, Holidays, Social Justice

...but wait, how can you be nostalgic for something that never went away?


So here we go again. Rampant sexism, this time aimed at kids. And if the other anti-sexism voices that have spoken out about this are any indication - bring on the hate comments, the name calling, and the attempted censorship of the female voice.


And yes I'm talking about the recent American release of The Dangerous Book for Boys. (read about it here) Amazon describes the book as -

Equal parts droll and gorgeous nostalgia book and heartfelt plea for a renewed sense of adventure in the lives of boys and men, Conn and Hal Iggulden's The Dangerous Book for Boys became a mammoth bestseller in the United Kingdom in 2006. Adapted, in moderation, for American customs in this edition (cricket is gone, rugby remains; conkers are out, Navajo Code Talkers in), The Dangerous Book is a guide book for dads as well as their sons, as a reminder of lore and technique that have not yet been completely lost to the digital age. Recall the adventures of Scott of the Antarctic and the Battle of the Somme, relearn how to palm a coin, tan a skin, and, most charmingly, wrap a package in brown paper and string. The book's ambitions are both modest and winningly optimistic: you get the sense that by learning how to place a splint or write in invisible ink, a boy might be prepared for anything, even girls (which warrant a small but wise chapter of their own).

There's the part of my that likes the concept of the book. Getting kids off their butts, getting them outside and active, and discovering the world around them. These are things I enjoyed as a kid. Learning how to build stuff, writing in code, playing spy games in the neighborhood, collecting all the discarded Christmas trees and making a huge fort at the local park, building fires, learning to identity trees and flowers, studying ancient history... These are all good, fun things. And I agree that often safety and fear of being sued have led to many fun activities (paper airplanes, field trips, snowball fights...) being banned. I think we should all learn about where our food comes from, survival skills, and historical perspectives. There are basic skills that just aren't taught these days (as cramming useless facts for standardized tests takes up more and more time). This book has some good stuff in it.

But

Here's where women and moms are being muzzled. The premise of the book is that this is fun stuff for boys and dads, of course moms won't like it. So any criticism from women is met with a role of the eyes and a "see I told you so" aside. Pretty nifty marketing plan there. (see the promo video here). So at the risk of being dismissed before I even open my mouth, let me say I have issues with this as well.

No matter how you slice it its sexist. Beyond being marketed as a book for boys, the authors say that the book exists "to celebrate boys, because nobody has been doing it for a long while." Why does this have to be about gender? Why is learning about history, nature, sports, and building things something just for boys? And when have boys failed to be celebrated? Is this anti-feminist backlash or just savvy marketing that capitalized on that backlash? I sick of reading on blogs that girls aren't into this stuff anyway and that its so refreshing to be "beyond" feminism and PC". Give me a break. Do we have to have the "all guys are like this and all girls are like this" lie once again? Must girls continue to feel like unwanted guests at the party and second class citizens? Do we really have to re-interpreted messages like this for our kids (yes Emma, I know it just addresses boys, but really you can try it too)?

So its a how-to book I find fascinating, but it supports gender biases I am trying to change. And the word out there is shut up and just enjoy it for what it is. Sorry, but if everyone does that things will never change.

Labels: Book Reviews, Gender Issues, parenting