Cultural Misogyny & The Church's
I have come across several things over the last few weeks that have caused a fair amount of disquiet to stir within my heart; that is the heart of a woman traversing through life, culture, faith and the church.
The first of these is in reference to recent rape allegations involving a three-time Stanley Cup winning hockey player, Patrick Kane. The only thing we know at this point is that an allegation of an “incident” at the player’s home has been made, and that an investigation is underway. No charges have been brought at this point. I am not going to speculate about the case in any way, as that is not the point of this post. The pertinent aspect of this whole thing is the ridiculously misogynistic sentiments being expressed on social media, comments sections and discussion boards all over the internet. In a world where celebrities are bona fide idols to many people, it is no surprise that many are quick to assume Kane’s innocence (which, legally, they should) but sadly it does not end there. No, it is not enough to simply assert one’s support for the athlete (whom, it should be pointed out, none of these people personally know - but that is the seductive deception of our current celebrity culture: they are your friends!). Rather, a disconcertingly high number of people are convinced that the accuser (victim?) is clearly a money-grabbing slut who is out for a payday. Because why on earth would Patrick Kane need to rape somebody when practically any woman would happily fall into bed with him. Indeed, many others state that if the woman was indeed raped, she should see this as an honour and not a crime. What these sentiments reveal is firstly a shocking lack of understanding about rape, and secondly a recognisable brand of misogyny that sees women as conniving vixens prepped and ready to tear successful (or indeed any) men down. Any attempt to curb these attitudes have been branded by some as being part of the “Feminazi” agenda, which again reinforces this idea of women (especially women who are vocal) as co-ordinating an all-out assault on the male population. It’s men vs. women, and in this worldview, women only act or speak in order to undermine men.
This case is an example of misogyny rearing it’s ugly head in a very obvious and detectable manner. However, I have been prompted to think about the ways in which misogyny is actually more subtle and pervasive than we may realise. I was listening to a recent “Stuff You Should Know” podcast, the topic of which was auto-tune, and the episode concluded with a discussion between the two male hosts of SYSK and two female hosts of their sister podcast, “Stuff You Missed in History Class”. The topic they were discussing was the differences in how male and female podcasters are received, and specifically if the two female podcasters found that they were disproportionately criticised compared to their male counterparts. This was mostly anecdotal, with no data to verify either way except for the assertion by one of the female podcasters who stated that negative feedback regarding the voices of podcasters was more often aimed at the women than at the men. Now you may think: so what? Who cares if people find these particular female podcasters’ voices more annoying than the male podcasters’ voices? Well the issue is not about the tonal appeal of the voices. It is about the challenge women face in trying to teach, in being assertive, in being knowledgeable and in conveying all of this in a way that is taken seriously. An “annoying” or insubstantial voice can be more easily dismissed. In this way, women are literally robbed of their voices: they are not heard; or they are heard incompletely; or what they say is more mercilessly criticised and undermined. This article in the Guardian hints at the ways in which women find it difficult to express themselves in an authoritative way:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/24/vocal-fry-strong-female-voice
As Christians, we know that this broken and fractured relationship between male and female is the result of the Fall and the sinfulness that pervades humankind. As Christians, we also believe that there are God-given solutions to this problem and that we can have healthy relationships between the sexes. For Complementarians, this solution is found in male headship in the Church and in marriage, where men lovingly guide women and women support and help the men. However, whilst this may be the ideal, even the Church cannot fully escape the gender-related problems of this world. I remember listening to a woman speak of her “conversion” from Egalitarianism to Complementarianism and how this had had a positive impact upon her marriage and her faith. However, she expressed dismay at the way in which champions of Complementarian often failed to adequately engage with cultural issues in order to convey the positive aspects of Complementarianism. She pointed to the well-publicised cases of violence against women (domestic abuse in the NFL, violence against women in India, the Isla Vista shootings) and the disheartening silence in Complementarian circles regarding these events. How come they were not engaging with this gender-related issue (i.e. misogyny) in the same way they did with e.g. homosexuality or transgenderism? It seems that Complementarian writing is more often concerned with telling women what they can and cannot do rather than with demonstrating how this principle can help to offer a solution to the ongoing repression and violence perpetuated against women.
I rather suspect that part of the reason this topic is avoided by advocates of Complementarianism is because they do not want to be associated with feminism in any way. Indeed, I recently came across an article that reported that an increasing number of men felt there was an increasing “feminisation” of churches which reflects the broader sense of a “feminisation” of society as a whole. I personally found this rather curious, as my experience of church has been perhaps the polar opposite of this. Elders are male, most worship leaders are male, the majority of staff are male, attendees at theological conferences are predominantly male. Women are primarily involved precisely where you would expect them to be: in catering, in hosting, in children’s work. And the overwhelming majority of those women are wives and mothers. The author of the article argued that this sense of “feminisation” is not so much a reflection of reality i.e. that women are taking over and altering the tone of churches, but is rather due to the fact that women have been relegated to the background for so long that any increase in their visibility and involvement in “non-traditional” roles is seen as an encroachment on male territory and an undermining of the male role. Her point was that the Church is not immune to attitudes about gender set by society (rather than the Bible) and that an attitude towards females that is subconsciously defined by repression and opposition, rather than harmony and symbiosis, is what is being exposed. This article, along with the rather enlightening comments on it made by a number of men, makes me believe that whilst on the one hand Complementarians assert that women can essentially do anything in a church except be an Elder, the cultural assumptions about gender roles that pervade the Church actually mean that in practical terms this is not always possible (or desired); and that ultimately many within the Church are uncertain what to do with women beyond the stereotypical gender assignations of wives, mothers and those who perform domestic duties.
So this is where I bring it all home. How do all these strands - blatant misogyny, the struggle women face in being assertive, Complementarianism - relate and why do all these things strike such a deep chord with me? With regards to blatant misogyny: what struck me the most about the examples I gave is firstly the frequency of those sentiments, and secondly the casualness with which they were expressed. My thought upon reading the nth Tweet in this vein was: “do these people not have people in their lives that have taught them how to regard women with respect? Do they honestly not understand the basic realities of rape?” If so many people are able to express such despicable statements, then it would be naive to assume that those within the Church are not affected by such thinking in however an insidious a manner. Indeed, in my own experience, I remember having a discussion with a group of young men in my old church in which they were pretty adamant that the way in which a woman dressed was a contributing factor to rape. In other words, part (or perhaps even most?) of the blame definitely lies with the victim. I remember being absolutely furious that these, my brothers in Christ, would adopt this misogynistic attitude: that women somehow force men to behave in a reprehensible manner, that ultimately it is their fault because they taunt men who cannot possibly have any self-control or hear and accept the word “no”. What is terrifying about this attitude is that it is precisely one that rapists use to justify their actions. What does it say when young (Christian!) men find sense in this? That they cannot recognise a gaping chasm between experiencing lust on one hand and actively forcing a woman to have sex against her will on the other. Never mind the fact that what we know about rape cases simply does not support this ridiculous belief. What does it say about how the Church teaches young men to view women when they find this reasoning of rape plausible? Or perhaps the problem is precisely a lack of discussion of how to see women, beyond potential wives.
This way in which women are perceived in the Church is one that I have personally found to be very troublesome (and because “the Church” is such a nebulous thing, the personal aspect of this blog is key). This is closely related to the strand of the struggle women have in asserting themselves as authoritative. I remember being told by a young man in my old church - and not just any young man but rather a leader and an employee of the church - that he found intelligent women intimidating. I heard on more than one occasion a distaste for “strong” women (and what does “strong” mean? Intelligent? Articulate? Confident? Outspoken?). I was told by another young man from a completely different church (and church background) that he found me intimidating because I was doing PhD. On a women’s retreat with a church on an entirely different continent, I was told repeatedly that I was “more than my intelligence” - as though my intelligence is some obstacle that I need to overcome. What does all that added up together tell me? That an intelligent, “strong” woman is unappealing. That an intelligent, strong woman needs to hide who she is, become silent or become someone else. An intelligent, strong woman must tone down her intelligence in order to conform to some other feminine ideal, something less threatening. Would an intelligent man ever be told these things? Or would they more likely be hailed as the next great theologian and Bible teacher?
It is against this backdrop of subtle hostility towards strong, intelligent women that young girls are being raised. Being a strong, intelligent and independent woman is undesirable. Perhaps this all sounds rather close to “feminist”. How many girls and young women are subconsciously learning to compromise their thoughts, opinions and voices in order to be more readily accepted by a church culture that is resistant to accepting women’s views as knowledgeable and authoritative (and no I don’t mean “authoritative” in a governmental or “teaching” - whatever that means - sense. I simply mean as educated, learned individuals who have something to contribute)? The Complementarian worldview calls for a wife to be submissive to their husband. But what I think some people struggle to understand is that a woman who is strong and intelligent is perfectly capable of being submissive to her husband.* Yet in a culture where marriage is close to an obsession, men are looking for types that already fit this “submissive” mould - which for some reason seems to translate as docile, unintimidating, quiet women - and women are prepared to become this. So, in order to fit into this cultural landscape, how many young girls have learned to bite their tongues after having observed young men roll their eyes at young women voicing their opinions, or after having heard a young man express that he could not marry a strong woman for fear that she might eat him alive (yes, true story)? I know of a young woman who, for all intents and purposes, is an intelligent, successful person with a degree and a high profile job, who felt she could not lead a home group because she was, at the time, single. Why is it that she felt the need to have a husband in order to function more effectively in a church context, despite the fact that she had accomplished everything outside of church without one and only by the grace and power of God that is bestowed upon all of us, regardless of our marital status? Why would a woman willingly give up her voice in church when in reality that voice could be a blessing to many? I suppose one might say that she felt she would benefit from the support of a spouse in the role, but I wonder to what degree she simply felt less confident as a single woman in adopting a leadership role because of the difficulty in asserting oneself without being seen as intimidating or threatening.
I wrote this blog post because I believe the principle of Complementarianism is Biblical and can provide the foundation for healthy, productive gender roles within the Church. However, I also recognise that the Church is not immune to the broken attitudes towards women that can be found in society more broadly. What I have personally seen and experienced leads me to believe that the Church has to work harder at establishing an environment that faithfully maintains the principles of Complementarianism but at the same time does not breed a subconscious distaste for women (or at least certain types of women) and women’s voices, that robs women of these voices - both literally and figuratively - and forces them to become less than they are. No Christian man should ever think that a heinous crime such as rape is in any way ever justifiable, when rape is completely antithetical to, and indeed a blatant violation of, God’s design for sexual relations. No Christian woman should apologise for being smart. No Christian man should ever feel threatened by a “strong” woman and feel that their own strength is dependent upon and validated by a woman’s weakness. No Christian woman should feel that they are incomplete or less capable of functioning because they do not have a husband. I believe that a Church that truly values women and all that women can bring can be a Church that more truly reflects God’s intentions and more fully glorifies Him. I hope that this is a Church I will one day experience.
*The parameters of a single woman’s submissiveness to men are less clear. Yes, they need to submit to Elders, but then so does every church member. The question of what their relationship is to other men in the church is one to which I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer. Can a woman ever lead men or are they simply to be no more than administrators? Can they correct or advise men on doctrinal or theological matters (without the guidance of a husband)? This is something the Church needs to work out and articulate: it is all very well telling women they can do anything they want except be Elders but fail to explain what this means with regards to leadership.
baratheonpilled
2087
prguitarman
amandla
ellievsbear
tangentwithtanner
vaporwave
stormborns
