Feminism

Separate is not Equal & Together is Awesome

1010073_10151428607366735_362495096_nThis is a concept you have heard over and over if you were raised in church; you may have even heard it in some other marriage book or seminar. It is a distinction without a difference (a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things even though there is, in fact, no actual difference) and that as my wise husband said upon seeing this meme, “I don’t know whether this is accurate or not. But it seems to me that if men do derive more self-esteem by being respected instead of loved, this is likely due to men’s psyche evolving in a patriarchal society. And it also seems to me that many Christians have taken one small comment made by Paul and blown it up into an entire doctrine. I think everyone should be loved and respected and everyone wants to be loved and respected. Mutuality is the way of Christ.”

Because of this doctrine we as Christians (and others) often divide up like junior high kids at the roller rink or a school dance, boys on one wall and girls on another. So without further ado, here are my top reasons why all this division stinks and why togetherness is effing awesome.

1. Separating the genders fosters misunderstanding and fear and also contributes to the “battle of the sexes”. Togetherness shows us that we need not be afraid of each other and that men and women should not be in competition. Moreover it shows us that we should be in cooperation and community with one other. ONE BODY. Not two bodies, one male and one female.

2. Separation of the sexes during bible study fosters the idea that men and women are not equal in God’s eyes and that women cannot teach men about the Bible. For TONS of amazing FREE material on this check out CBE’s Biblical Equality 101 page. Penis≠Power.

3. Separation also confirms the fallacy that we have nothing to learn from hearing how others feel and encourages us to “tune out” when we are together and someone from the opposite sex is speaking. We can all benefit from another person’s point of view no matter what equipment they have.

4. Keeping boys and girls apart (or single men and women apart) will not stop them from having sex. Take a gander at these bullet points lifted from a Christianity Today article…

  • Three surveys of single Christian adults conducted in the 1990s determined that approximately one third were virgins—meaning, of course, that two thirds were not.
  • In 2003, researchers at Northern Kentucky University showed that 61 percent of students who signed sexual-abstinence commitment cards broke their pledges.
  • Of the remaining 49 percent who kept their pledges, 55 percent said they’d had oral sex, and did not consider oral sex to be sex.
And this is with keeping the genders separated most of the time. If we put the genders together in almost every context what we would find is less fear, more respect and more understanding. When we have that, we may not have lower rates of premarital sex, but we probably won’t have higher rates either. At the very least we will have people who are able to communicate, love and respect one another, which will make (at the minimum) casual sex rates decline.
5. But what about separating when it comes to talking about the deed itself? Surely then Michelle you think we should divide up based on parts, vaginas to the left and penises to the right. But seriously…my answer is no, not even then. When we discuss sexuality separately it encourages secrecy and says that sex and sexuality is something to be ashamed of. We train our kids and ourselves to be ashamed/afraid to discuss intimacy with even our spouse. I know for me (and most of my friends) the way we were raised to keep such issues quiet and certainly not to discuss them in mixed company. It took me YEARS to undo the effects of this training with my husband and I am STILL working on it. When we stigmatize sexuality the way we have we do serious harm to our marriages. All we teach our girls right up until they are engaged is only how to say no. Oh wait, we also teach them how they are like a chewed piece of gum or a glass of water every boy in the room has spit in and no one is willing to drink if they fail to do so. And then we condemn these same women when they are sexually clueless and have nothing but negative thoughts about sex. Also, separating the sexes by parts has another issue. NOT EVERYONE IS HETEROSEXUAL. Sooo, yeah. There’s that.
6. Lastly, for now, it plays into the myth that women cannot be understood by men and/or men cannot be understood by women. Perhaps the reason we can’t understand each other is because we have been separated since the day we were born. Ironically, especially at the times it matters the most. Do you want to know a secret? The way to get to know someone is to SPEND TIME WITH THEM! Shocking, I know. We learn about each other when we stop dividing ourselves into us and them, boys and girls, mars and venus. We learn about each other when we listen and speak even when we are uncomfortable or afraid or even mad. We must overcome the awkwardness that we feel because of how we have been taught and allow our children to know a better way. The way of togetherness.

Excuse me but the “Modest is Hottest” logo on your t-shirt draws too much attention to your chest.

Remember the other day when I said every guy has a different “line”? Well…

According to The Modesty Survey, I am a stumbling block to at least some men NO MATTER WHAT I DO OR WEAR because I might stand, sit or walk the wrong way.

I humbly submit to you that you cannot follow all of these “guidelines” that are meant to be “helpful”. Just for grins I went to a website by a woman who is trying diligently to dress modestly.

STOP HERE and go check it out: http://inspiredbyfamilymag.com/2012/08/24/how-to-dress-modest-and-stylish/

Ar you back? Cute right?

Every outfit on that page is immodest to at least some of the 1600 men who answered this survey.

Here is a simple list of the percentages of men from the survey who either agree or strongly agree that a particular action or garment or way of wearing said garment is immodest.

The Headings are theirs. The underlined comments are mine.

GENERAL

Girls should always wear clothes that show little body definition (e.g., jumpers or loose dresses). 16.9%

Exposing the chest below the collarbone, even without cleavage, is immodest. 26.1%

Denim jackets with faded sections on the chest draw too much attention to the bust.  31.9%

Girls with less curves can wear clothes that girls with more curves should not. 34.2%

Leotards, sheer skirts, and tutus in theatre or dance performances are immodest. 35.8%

Even modest pajamas are inappropriate for a girl to wear in public. 48.6%

Zipping a form-fitting jacket to just below the chest draws too much attention to the bust. 56.8%

Nude colored clothing looks too much like bare skin. 57.5%

A technically modest outfit can be a stumbling block when it has attached sexual associations (e.g. a “school girl” outfit after Britney Spears released a music video where she was dressed as an “innocent” school girl, but acted very provocatively.)  61.8%

Showing any cleavage is immodest.  70.4%

A modestly dressed girl can still be a stumbling block because of her attitude and behavior. 93.8%

SWIMSUITS

A one-piece swimsuit with shorts on top is immodest. 14.3%

A two-piece swimsuit consisting of a long tank top and skort is immodest. 16.4%

A one-piece swimsuit is immodest. 25.7%

It is a stumbling block when swimsuit ties stick out from under clothing (e.g. tied around the neck). 35%

A tankini with shorts is immodest.  41.8%

A tankini with a bikini-bottom is immodest.  62.6%

It is not okay for a girl to wear a revealing swimsuit (e.g., a bikini) if she wears a t-shirt over  it. 55.1%

Halter-top swimsuits are immodest. 56.1%

UNDERGARMENTS

Halter-top bras (i.e. bras with string straps that tie at the back of the neck) are a stumbling block. 56%

Showing bra straps, even unintentionally, is a stumbling block. 57.4%

It is a stumbling block when a girl reaches into her shirt to adjust a bra strap. 65.4%

The lines of undergarments, visible under clothing, cause guys to stumble. 71.6%

SHIRTS/DRESSES

Dresses that are fitted at the waist (e.g. with a belt or waistband) are a stumbling block. 8.4%

Fitted dresses are immodest, even if they do NOT show skin (e.g. a high-neck prom dress). 11.2%

Shirts with floral designs across the front draw too much attention to the bust. 11.9%

Shirts or dresses with chest pockets draw too much attention to the bust. 18.6%

Semi-transparent sleeves are a stumbling block. 19.1%

Sleeveless shirts or dresses (i.e. bare arms) are immodest. 21.1%

Shirts or dresses with cap sleeves are immodest. 21.2%
(Seriously? Cap sleeves?)

Sweatshirts with messages across the front draw too much attention to the bust. 25.1%

Shirts or dresses with empire waists draw too much attention to the bust. 27.5%

V-neck shirts or dresses are a stumbling block, even if they are not revealing. 34.4%

Shirts or dresses that show the shoulders (i.e. more than a normal sleeveless top) are immodest, even if they are not otherwise revealing.  38%

Shirts or dresses (long or short-sleeved) with slits in the sleeves are a stumbling block. 40.8%

A shirt buttoned to just under the bust is a stumbling block, even if a modest shirt is worn underneath.  41.6%

Shirts with messages across the front draw too much attention to the bust. 47%
       (Wait, Even if it says, “Modest is Hottest? I am so confused!)

Girls should not wear thin shirts or dresses since they tend to be clingier. 48.3%

Lace-edge camisoles sticking out of the top of shirts look too much like underwear. 50.9%

Shirts or dresses that are gathered around the chest draw too much attention to the bust. 57.1%

Tank tops are generally immodest.  57.6%

Shirts or dresses that are low in the back are immodest, even if the fronts are modest. 58.8%

Shrugs, the short shirts and jackets that just cover the chest, draw too much attention to the bust.  59%

Spaghetti-strap shirts and dresses are immodest. 60.9%

Shirts with a low crisscross in the front draw too much attention to the bust.  61.2%

The same standards of modesty should apply to wedding and bridesmaids’ dresses as to everyday attire.  65.1%

Strapless dresses are immodest.  65.9%

The lacy, lingerie look of some tops is a stumbling block. 66.1%

A camisole is immodest if worn alone.  67.5%

Seeing even an inch of skin between the bottom of a girl’s shirt and her pants is a stumbling block.  71.3%

Halter-tops (shirts or dresses) are immodest. 73.5%

Tube tops are immodest. 85.6%

LAYERING

It is not a stumbling block if a girl’s shirt creeps up, as long as she has a camisole tucked in underneath so that no skin shows.  15.8%

Wearing spaghetti-strap tops over modest shirts is a stumbling block. 24.7%

Seeing a girl take off a pullover (i.e. a shirt that must be pulled over the head) is a stumbling block, even if she is wearing a modest shirt underneath. 37.3%

Wearing a very low shirt (e.g. a shirt with a neckline that reaches the belly button) is a stumbling block, even if a modest shirt is worn underneath. 42%

Wearing a tight shirt under an open button-down shirt or a jacket is immodest. 48.7%

Wearing a semi-transparent shirt over a sleeveless shirt (e.g. camisole, tank top, etc.) is immodest. 52.8%

PANTS/SHORTS/LEGGINGS

It is immodest for a girl to expose her calves (i.e. knee downward). 6.8%

Jeans are generally immodest, even if they aren’t tight. 14.4%

Nude colored nylons are a stumbling block. 14.5%

Wearing nylons is more modest than having bare legs, regardless of the length of the skirt or dress. 24.1%

Wearing short skirts or mini skirts over jeans is a stumbling block.  27.4%

Skirts are more modest than pants (even loose fitting pants).  28.6%

Any shorts that are shorter than knee-length are immodest. 34.2%

Tights with designs (e.g. polka dots or stripes) draw too much attention to the legs. 38.8%

Decorative stitching and designs on the back pockets of jeans draw too much attention to the rear. 44%

Jeans with worn marks across the bottom, on the thighs, etc. are a stumbling block. 47.6%

It is immodest for a girl to expose her legs up to mid-thigh. 64.5%

Miniskirts, long shirts, or short dresses over leggings are a stumbling block.  64.9%

Fishnet stockings are a stumbling block. 66.8%

Skin-tight jeans are a stumbling block.  76.2%

Any shorts that are shorter than mid-thigh are immodest.  83.8%

Wearing pants with words across the backside is a stumbling block. 84.3%

SKIRTS

Sparkly, shiny skirts are a stumbling block, regardless of length. 9%

Skirts with slits are immodest. 29.1%

An ankle-length skirt with a knee-high slit is more modest than a knee-length skirt. 31.6%

Form-fitting skirts are a stumbling block, regardless of length. 32%

Seeing a girl’s slip through the slit in her skirt is a stumbling block. 34.3%

A skirt that is tight around the hips, but loose below the hips, is a stumbling block, regardless of length. 36.8%

Skirts made out of many layers of semi-transparent material to form an opaque skirt are a stumbling block, regardless of length. 38%

Full skirts are more modest than narrow skirts. 48.1%

Skirts that fall above the knee are immodest.  58.3%

Slits that go above the knee are immodest. 71.8%

Miniskirts are immodest.  93.1%

POSTURE/MOVEMENT

It is a stumbling block for a girl wearing pants to sit cross-legged (i.e. Indian style). 14.3%

It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she’s just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends.  22.5%

Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block. 47.4%

It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart. 51.3%

Seeing a girl stretching (e.g. arching the back, reaching the arms back, and sticking out the chest) is a stumbling block. 56.8%

A girl bending over and exposing her lower back is a stumbling block. 63.6%

The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block. 74.9%

A girl’s physical posture and/or position can be a stumbling block. 84.7%

MAKEUP/JEWELRY/HAIR/SHOES

Necklaces that create a “V” are a stumbling block. 14.8%

Playing with jewelry, such as a necklace, is a stumbling block. 18.6%

Anklets draw too much attention to the legs. 23.2%

High-heeled shoes (2″ or higher) are a stumbling block. 24.5%

Putting lip-gloss on in front of a guy is a stumbling block. 27%

High-heeled black boots are a stumbling block. 29.3%

Wearing heavy perfume is a stumbling block. 32%

High-heeled shoes cause girls to walk in a suggestive way. 35.8%

Wearing heavy makeup is a stumbling block. 37%

Shoes with straps that lace all the way up to mid/upper-calf are a stumbling block.  40.6%

A purse with the strap diagonally across the chest draws too much attention to the bust. 47.5%  (yes your purse strap is immodest!)

ARE YOU AS EXHAUSTED AS I AM?

And before you say well some of those statements are only approved by less than 10% of the 1600 guys who replied, remember that is still 160 dudes!

I have a query in to the creators of the survey as to denominational demographics of the men (aged 12-50+) who participated. I have not received a response as of yet. You can read all the available demographic information here: http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/overview

The Modesty Survey grew out of The Rebelution website’s gender segregated chatrooms. The Rebelution was created by Alex and Brett Harris of “Do Hard Things” fame. Their older brother is known for writing “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and their father was one of the catalysts behind the modern homeschooling movement.

The folks behind The Modesty Survey describe it this way on their website:

The Modesty Survey was not intended to serve as a scientific measurement of what the average man thinks about modesty. In the strictest sense, it isn’t a survey, but a discussion between Christian guys and girls who care about modesty. Over 200 Christian girls submitted their questions. In less than twenty days, over 1,600 Christian guys (12 and up) responded. Close to 200,000 separate pieces of data were collected, including 25,000 text responses.

After presenting women with all of this they are kind enough to say that the ultimate responsibility for lust lies with men…Oh good. Thanks for making that clear.

Aside

Let’s get these girls in school!

banner-educationToday is my 44th birthday and I would like to see if together we can send 44 girls to school for the year.

I am hoping you all will help me.

  • For each year, a girl stays in school, her future income can increase by 15-25%.
  • Girls with secondary schooling on average have 2.2 fewer, yet healthier children.
  • If 10% more girls attend school, a country’s GDP increases an average of 3%.

For $52 you can send a girl to school for a whole year. That is only $1 a week.

Come on, let’s change the world for the better this year!

I am starting by paying for one and my church is also paying for one. that only leaves 42 to go.

Click this link to get started.  http://gifts.rescue.org/product/education/year-school

When you are done please leave a comment on this post and we can all keep track as we approach our goal together!

Bikinis, Sepulchres & Bathing Machines

Hey lovelies, I started this post several days ago and since then the brilliant and talented Rachel Held Evans has chimed in with a fabulous post on this very topic titled: Modesty: I Don’t Think it Means What You Think it Means. You should read it too even though I am going to quote it a couple times. 🙂

Bikini Girls from a Mosaic found at Villa Romana del Casale a 4th century Italian villa.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:20-23, ESV)

Putting on regulations that look and sound good because they make us feel like we are safe from ourselves DO NOT WORK. They are of no value when it comes to stopping the indulgence of the flesh. You want to know why lovelies? Because keeping the “rules” doesn’t change your heart. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, that is just a whited sepulchre: Pretty and clean but full of death.

Summer is upon us kiddos and you know what that has meant (at least in my Facebook feed)? A plethora of articles from my well meaning Christian friends that tell me what I can and cannot wear at the beach or even in my own swimming pool if I am going to claim to be a proper Christian lady. Bikinis are taboo my friends and not just for me but also for my 10 year old daughter if I don’t want her to grow up to be some sort of floozie. The logic goes, men are visual creatures, they can’t help themselves. They are unable, you see, to overcome their biology. They are weak and they need me to cover up so they won’t think about having sex with me and in so doing commit adultery in their heart.  So if indeed I am a kind and loving person I will help them out by wearing a one piece. Oh wait but not any one piece, that can’t be too revealing either. Perhaps a cover up over it. But why stop there? Bathing suits are form fitting. Maybe they should be looser. Maybe I should just wear board shorts and a t-shirt. But wait, not if the shorts are too short.  Maybe we should go back to some of the old suits or even bathing machines? Where does it end? Where is the line between too sexy and just sexy enough? Because the same folks who tell me there are rules about me wearing a bikini also tell me there are rules about not “letting myself go” and making sure I am still sexy enough for my husband. Sigh. It is exhausting.

Side note: I have friends who say, just ask any man he can tell you where the line is. Well, I’ve got news for you lovelies, every man has a different line.

Several of the articles I have read quote a Princeton study that says,

“Brain scans revealed that when men are shown pictures of scantily clad women, the region of the brain associated with tool use lights up.”

Men were also more likely to associate images of sexualized women with first-person action verbs such as “I push, I grasp, I handle,” said lead researcher Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University.

[You don’t want to be seen as a mere tool to be used do you? is the question that comes next. But wait we will get to that later.]

Tamara Smith-Dyer (Full-time data analyst at the University of Pennsylvania and Cabrini sociology professor) asserts that the sample in this study is very biased. “Including 21 undergraduate males from Princeton does not provide a representative sample of the population. For example, the age is limited. Race and socioeconomic status will be skewed in this sample as well.”

“The sample size, 21, is very small. While the scientific community typically holds a minimum acceptable sample size to be 30, which is more than the current study’s sample size, statisticians including myself know that even 30 is very limited and samples should be much larger than this when possible in order to prevent ‘false positive’ study results,” Dyer said.

Not only that, the Christian “anti bikini” articles that I read liked pointing out that, “the part of the brain associated with analyzing another person’s thoughts, feelings and intentions was inactive while viewing scantily clad women” however this statement is out of context and is also misleading. When performing the study “the participants, 21 heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton, took questionnaires to determine whether they harbor “benevolent” sexism, which includes the belief that a woman’s place is in the home, or hostile sexism, a more adversarial viewpoint which includes the belief that women attempt to dominate men.”  The study goes on to state that for “the men who scored highest on hostile sexism, the part of the brain associated with analyzing another person’s thoughts, feelings and intentions was inactive while viewing scantily clad women.” One analyst put it this way, “those who viewed women as controlling and invaders of male space—didn’t show brain activity that indicates they saw the women in bikinis as humans with thoughts and intentions.” Do you see the difference that one little fact that these were the men who held the most sexist attitudes prior to the study makes? So now these are not all 21 young men who took part but only those of the 21 who scored highest for hostile sexism.

SO… of the 21 college men those who had the most aggressive sexist attitudes did not see women in bikinis as having thoughts and intentions. Hmmm. It seems to me they thought that before seeing them in bikinis.

It would seem to me that the way we teach our boys to think about women has a bigger effect on whether men see them as objects than what they have on. Don’t get me wrong, I am not naive, I know men will look at women in bikinis and find them sexually attractive. They will also look at women in shorts, skirts, pants, blouses, dresses and for some even shapeless denim jumpers and find them sexually attractive. As RHE stated in the post linked above,

The truth is, a man can choose to objectify a woman whether she’s wearing a bikini or a burqa. We don’t stop lust by covering up the female form; we stop lust by teaching men to treat women as human beings worthy of respect.

Contrary to what some think I personally do not believe the mere biological, chemical and psychological processes involved in sexual attraction are in and of themselves sinful.

I am the mother of one middle school aged son and one middle school aged daughter. My daughter wears a bikini. The other day we had a conversation about this topic. I assured my daughter that if someone looks at her and is sexually attracted to her she is not sinning. I assured my son of the same. I also assured them that if they were sexually attracted to someone they were not sinning. Sin enters the picture between our ears and in our hearts when we choose to objectify that person and look at them as something to be possessed. I will quote Rachel again here,

It is important here to make a distinction between attraction and lust. Attraction is a natural biological response to beauty; lust obsesses on that attraction until it grows into a sense of ownership, a drive to conquer and claim. When Jesus warns that “everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” he uses the same word found in the Ten Commandments to refer to a person who “covets” his neighbor’s property. Lust takes attraction and turns it into the coveting of a woman’s body as though it were property. And men are responsible for their own thoughts and actions when this happens; they don’t get to blame it on what a woman is wearing.

I promised you I would get back to the tool thing so here we go…this part of the study was actually done on both male and female undergraduates and suggested that men are more likely than women to link women wearing bikinis with first person action verbs such as “push,” “handle” and “grab.” However when the men looked at fully clothed women they associated them with the third person forms such as she “pushes,” “handles” and “grabs.” The researches felt this implied that the men viewed women who were fully clothed as in control of their own actions. I just think well, duh. It is kind of obvious that heterosexual men would be more likely than women to see a woman in a bikini and think push, handle grab than they are to think those words about a woman in say a business suit. I don’t think this implies a dang thing about their motives or whether they will choose to sin or not.  Also, as far as I can tell in this portion of the study no questionnaire was given as to what sexist attitudes any of these men (or women for that matter) may or may not have had and so we do not get to know if there would be the same correlation as before with people’s preconceived attitudes about male and female roles/relationships and what they thought when presented with images of women in bikinis. I suspect there would be. Once again, just because one has a thought come to mind or a biological process kick in, does not mean that person, either the man who’s tool sector (see what I did there?) is kicking in or the woman in the bikini at the pool, is sinning. It just means they are attracted, they see something they want to touch. What seems to matter most (at least to me) is the attitudes they already brought to the table about the roles, relationships and motivations of men and women.

All that said, I think it is up to each woman whether she wears a bikini. Some women are comfortable in one and some are not. Here’s a fun little exercise. Let’s have a look at Romans 14 and how it might look in re to our current conversation…

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome her, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes she may wear anything, while the other wears only what is “modest”. Let not the one who wears a bikini despise the one who does not, and let not the one who does not wear a bikini pass judgment on the one who does, for God has welcomed her. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before her own master that she stands or falls. And she will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make her stand.

One person esteems one bathing suit as better than another, while another esteems all bathing suits alike. Each one should be fully convinced in her own mind. The one who does wears the bikini, wears it in honor of the Lord. The one who wears, wears in honor of the Lord, since she gives thanks to God, while the one who does not wear, does not wear in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to herself, and none of us dies to herself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Why do you pass judgment on your sister? Or you, why do you despise your sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of herself to God.

So to all my Jesus loving women friends out there (yes you!) rock that suit, bikini or not for you are beautiful and it doesn’t matter if the whole world knows it. Being attractive is not a sin. Judging your sister is. Being attractive does not cause sin any more than being hungry causes gluttony.  And to all my Jesus following male friends out there. Sexual attraction is not sin. Treating a woman as less than you is. Admiring beauty is not sin. Treating a woman as something to be possessed is.

BONUS CONTENT…

Hey, I just thought of this on my laundry folding break…

We don’t say:
The chef caused me to be a glutton, they are sinning by making the plates look so beautiful and the food taste so good.
They should have to make it less delicious and less appetizing so I won’t over eat.
The car manufacturer caused me to envy, they are sinning by making the cars too fast and stunning to look at. They should design uglier cars so I won’t envy.
The clothing store caused me to shoplift, they are sinning by setting the price higher than I can pay. They should lower their prices so I don’t steal.
He was working with his shirt off, he is sinning by being out where women can see him. He should put a shirt on so women don’t lust after him.

We do say:
Her dress is too short (or she is wearing a bikini), she is sinning by being too sexy. She should wear a longer skirt so men don’t sin.They did something I find annoying, they are sinning by causing me to get angry. They should stop doing that so I don’t lose my temper.

I wonder why this is? I guess that is fodder for another post.

 

 

 

So this actually exists and the world is worse for it.

WARNING: THIS POST NOT FOR KIDS

So people often ask me why I am a feminist and then they point out all the ways that women and men are equal (look we can vote, own property and have our own bank accounts!) and that it isn’t like we live in an episode of Mad Men anymore.

Why?

Why?

I’ll tell you why, because THIS…
Blachman

Image

Blachman is a real, actual, Danish prime time reality television show where the man on the right, X Factor’s Thomas Blachman and another male guest critique a live nude woman’s body. YES YOU HEARD ME RIGHT AND YES SHE CAN HEAR EVERY WORD. (Why a woman would subject herself to this kind of humiliation is beyond me).

Here is what Mr. Thomas Blachman has to say for himself…

[T]he entire idea of the show is to let men talk about the bodies of naked women while the woman is standing right in front of them. The female body thirsts for words. The words of a man.”

and

“Ungratefulness is the only thing that can really wear down the few geniuses who reside in this country. Remember, I am giving you something that you have never seen before.Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

In an article on The Daily Mail he put it this way,

Blachman, who is a Danish X-Factor judge, today defended his idea insisting he was actually doing women a favour as the ‘female body thirsts for the words of a man’.

He also said his show – which has the eponymous title Blachman – was the work of a genius and had a higher objective of ‘discussing the aesthetics of a female body without allowing the conversation to become pornographic or politically correct’.

(Not sure how the phrases ‘How’s that p****’ working out for you?’, ‘Very animated nipples.’ and asking a woman to turn around because he is an ‘a** man’ fit into those parameters.)

The show’s FEMALE producer has this to add,

“We have a program that reveals what men think about the female body. Quite honestly, what is wrong with that?”

It breaks my heart that this passes as entertainment; that women are willing to put themselves in this postion; that there are people who are willing to put this on the air to make money; and that there are people who tune in to watch. It is just a sad day all around and this makes me almost too tired to fight. ALMOST.

Additional Reading:
Sometimes I Grow Weary of the Fight

A feminist thanks Lady Thatcher

thatcher House Photo Office/Public Domain

Margaret Thatcher is dead. And whether you agreed with her politics or not, she could not be ignored. I was about 15 or 16 when I first remember taking note of the woman they called the Iron Lady. She was the first woman I remember seeing as a confident, unapologetic, female world leader. Was she imperfect? Of course. Was she quick witted, brilliant and powerful? You bet your ever present strand of pearls she was.

I can still remember seeing her alongside President Reagan at the height of the cold war. She was so poised and confident that she made me think it was possible for women to do anything. It was possible for me to do anything.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with her politically, there is no denying that her presence on the world stage paved the way for women such as Hillary Clinton, President Park Geun-hye of South Korea, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra of Thailand, President Dilma Vana Linhares Rousseff of Brazil, Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia, Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdottir of Iceland, President Pratibha Patil of India, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and many others. She had ideas and opinions and she shared them unapologetically. She would not be ignored or disregarded.

So here’s to you Lady Thatcher. Thank you. You were fierce and powerful and I loved you for it. You helped break down walls for women on the world stage and for me in my own mind and for that I am eternally grateful.

May your soul rest in peace.

Love is not silent.


martin_luther_words_enemies

I was asked this weekend why I felt I needed to be an advocate for the homosexual community. Why me? I am not a lesbian after all. I have no close gay relatives.  Why do I feel like I need to be the one who speaks out about worship equality (Yes, I made that up and remember you heard it here first) and marriage equality. 

[Since I just made up a term I suppose I should define it for you. Here we go. Worship equality is the radical notion that God created us equal, that we each bear in us the image of God, and that we can and should all (regardless of gender or orientation) be welcomed to worship him with all our heart, soul mind and strength and that we should be encouraged to love people (our neighbors), all people as we love ourselves. This encompasses the radical notion that women are people and are equal in every way to men (notice equal DOES NOT SAY the same in every way, I am not the same as my husband just as I am not the same as any woman) and also that our LGBT brothers and sisters are equal to their straight counterparts in the eyes of God and therefore in our own.]

My friend also asked me what exactly it is that I am advocating and how I could be for marriage equality both in the public sector and as a Christian when (as he said) the Bible clearly calls all gay sex sin. My answer is simple. Politically, I am for marriage equality because anything else violates the equal protection clause. As an American and as a Christian I believe in an individual’s freedom and therefore I will not support legislation against marriage equality (indeed I will advocate for it to be overturned). Also, when people want to make laws against something purely because they believe it is biblical or Christian  I always ask, who’s version of the Bible shall we base the laws on? May I wear pants? May I drink alcohol? May I dance? May I eat shell fish? Of course the answer is really always (when you get down to brass tacks) the version of Christianity that person espouses (things really get sticky if you ask if people of other faith traditions, should they become the majority, start making Christians follow Sharia?). This is America. We are not truly free, unless we are all free. I would like to humbly suggest we remember that our forefathers and mothers wanted religious freedom. They did NOT want the government to tell them which religion to practice or how to practice it. You are free to believe what you will. You are just not free to force others to live by your convictions (incidentally this means they also are not free to force you to practice theirs.

As far as the Christian side goes. My answer is also simple. I believe that all the “so called” clobber passages (if they are even talking about homosexual relations) can be categorized in one of three ways or a combination thereof: idol worship, prostitution and/or pedophilia. I have already done extensive writing on all of these passages in my Homosexuality & God series from last year. I hope you will take a few minutes out to read these as it may, at the minimum, give you some food for thought. (I have come back and put this in bold because I have people asking my scriptural basis for my statements and I realized they were missing this link as they read. I hope this helps.)

Now my friend is like many Christians I know personally. He falls into the camp that says we should always love everyone God puts into our lives as completely as possible as God has equipped us gay or straight. He knows many LGBT people both privately and professionally and he treats them all with dignity and respect. He does however believe (at least currently) that the act of homosexual sex, no matter the context, is always sin. He also understands that he and I differ on this point. What he doesn’t get is why I feel the need to be an advocate. He wonders what it is that makes me write these posts and to have conversations in which I try to persuade people to my perspective. I will tell you what I told him. What if there were no advocates? Nothing would change. Without William Wilberforce or someone like him there would still be slave ships sailing legally, families being split apart and human beings who bear the very image of God being sold at auction to the highest bidder. LEGALLY. Without advocates, from outside an oppressed group it is much easier for the status quo to roll on decade after decade and century after century. Why do I advocate? How can I not? How can I be silent? Martin Luther King Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.”  Throughout history everyday people have stood up and cried out,

“THIS MUST STOP!”

William Wilberforce, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Harvey Milk, Oscar Schindler:  You can still hear them if you listen closely. Their voices can still be heard in every human heart that cries out for freedom and justice. Bob Dylan has an amazing song called What Good Am I in which he says, “If I shut myself off, so I can’t hear you cry…What good Am I?” What good Am I indeed? How can it be love if I stand silent when I could have spoken?

So today again I raise my voice and join their sad and beautiful and victorious song. Their song that still plays on

So today I say to gender inequality, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to marriage inequality, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to bullying, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to use of words like, “fag”, “retard” and “slut” to insult people and dehumanize them, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to female genital mutilation, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to the killing of babies just for being female, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to rape culture, “THIS MUST STOP!”

I say to human trafficking, “THIS MUST STOP!”

Why do I speak, because silence is deadly.

Margaret Cho said in her poignant response to Michelle Shocked’s tirade, “…the effect of someone saying “God hates fags” can never be underestimated either. It’s a license to kill. It’s a death sentence, It’s not funny. It’s not OK…there is this idea that it is OK to kill us, that it doesn’t matter if we die.” You see, when people are dehumanized (women, LGBT or otherwise); when people believe that someone is hated by an “all loving God” then it becomes okay for them to be spat on, beaten, bullied and even killed.

I simply must not be silent. I cannot stop. I am not naïve. I know there is only so much I can do with my little soapbox. But it is WHAT I CAN DO. And so I do it. I stand with Jennifer Knapp when she said in her article today entitled, Acknowledging Faith Voices Crucial for LGBT Civil Rights,

“…now we recognize that silence is too easily confused with consent for injustice.”

And I will tell you this, when I receive a letter that says, I was rejected by my church and my parents I thought God rejected me too. I thought I was disqualified from having a relationship with God. I was told God hates me. Because of you, I now know that God does love me and that he still wants me;  how can I stop?

This is what I was made to do. I don’t know what else to do on this day but stand on the side of love and tell you that God has gay children and he loves them. And to hatred and bigotry I say, “This MUST stop!”

Before The Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage, An American Change Of Heart

INTERVIEW: Rob Bell on Why He Supports Gay Marriage

Acknowledging Faith Voices Crucial for LGBT Civil Rights by Jennifer Knapp

http://godlessliberals.com/Pix/liz-feldman-gay-lunch.html

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell” – Rachel Held Evans

Is abolition “biblical”? – Rachel Held Evans

FROM MY BLOG:

Coming Out of the Church Closet: Bethany’s Story

Pray Away the Gay

Who Can Withhold the Water?

The True Magic Kingdom

WHAT IS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ANYWAY?

https://wordofawoman.com/page/2/?s=homosexuality

Without feminism… (And a nod to Ms. Stiles)

Today I met a car salesman named Chris who grew up as the child of a single mother. We talked about a lot of things in the downtime of “doing a deal”. We talked politics, religion, marriage equality and feminism. I love meeting men who celebrate and even champion equality. So, good job Ms. Stiles. You raised one of the good ones. In your honor here is my list of things we would lose we’re it not for women like you and men like your son.

Without Feminism you lose…

Your property

Your right to vote

Your autonomy

Your right to decide where, when and whom  you marry

Your bank account

Your right to inherit

Your right not to be abused

Your right to drive

Your right to leave home with out a male family member

Your right to wear what you wish

Your right to education

Your right to choose when or whether you become a parent

Your right to travel without permission

Your right to choose where and when you have sex

And so much more.

Stop (and dance) in the Name of Love

What is this all about you ask?

The ONE BILLION RISING campaign began as a call to action based on the staggering statistic that 1 in 3 women on the planet will be beaten or raped during her lifetime. With the world population at 7 billion, this adds up to more than ONE BILLION WOMEN AND GIRLS. On 14 February 2013, V-Day’s 15th anniversary, activists, writers, thinkers, celebrities and women and men across the world will come together to express their outrage, strike, dance, and RISE in defiance of the injustices women suffer, demanding an end at last to violence against women.

A global strike
An invitation to dance
A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends
An act of solidarity, demonstrating to women the commonality of their struggles and their power in numbers
A refusal to accept violence against women and girls as a given
A new time and a new way of being

Today women and men all over the world will rise and dance to show their solidarity with women around the world in their struggle to end gender based violence.

I just found out about this movement today so instead of attending a planned event I would like to dance with you my lovelies, right here. Right now.

Play the video and let’s dance.

Let’s dance and show the world that women are not possessions, women are not objects to be used, women are not less than.

This is my dance.

This is your dance.

This is the dance of every woman and every man who loves women.

As the song says lovelies,

We dance cause we love

Dance cause we dream

Dance cause we’ve had enough

Dance to stop the screams

Dance to break the rules

Dance to stop the pain

Dance to turn it upside down

Its time to break the chain,

oh yeah

Break the Chain

Today is Valentine’s Day. A day to love and be loved. A day to celebrate all that love is and all that love does. Today we will give gifts in the name of love, we will send messages to the ones we love. And today my lovelies we will stop in the name of love to dance on behalf of love.

Today may we be one step closer to stop(ping the violence) in the name of love.

Related articles

Mad Men (and Women) of Christianity


image
I know we are way behind but my husband and I just started watching Mad Men from the beginning on Netflix. Last night after watching the second episode, Kent turned to me and said, “Do you know why I like this show? Besides the great acting, writing and to-the-t period stuff?”
“No,” I said, “What?”
“This show is a perfect illustration of what people mean when they say they want to go back to the good old days. It’s how guys like Driscoll and Piper wish it was.”

I have been thinking about this ever since he said it last night.
At the time my mind immediately went to another blog written by Ben Ponder, editor-at-large for mediarostra.com which I read a while back. In it Mr. Ponder asserts that,

“Family” is the euphemistic code du jour for “Evangelical Christian.” “Focus on the Evangelical Christian” and the “American Evangelical Christian Association” didn’t have the same zing to them as their familiar twins. The watchword for these organizations is the preservation of “traditional family values,” which are, in a nutshell, white American family values from a period of 1939 to 1964. The family values constituency longs for a return to the virginal time before the Civil Rights movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the Vietnam War, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, John Lennon, and Rock Hudson made the world a more complicated place.
When I read the Bible, I get the distinct sense that Jesus wasn’t interested in saving the nuclear family from a windy onslaught of liberal opinions. I rather get the impression that he was concerned with diving headfirst into the unvarnished messiness of the human condition and saving us—as individuals, as families, as communities, as people—from our own unhinged self-absorption and festering lovelessness.

I also remembered a scene from Modern Family which I told you all about in The Will of the People. The scene takes place between Jay and Gloria.

“Jay: This weekend we’re going up to Pebble Beach. I’m gonna meet a bunch of guys I played high school football with. Man, those were the good old days.
Gloria: Yeah, unless you were a woman, black, Hispanic, or gay.
Jay: But if you were a straight white football player you couldn’t have a bad day.”

I am sure most of the folks nostalgic for a time gone by prefer to think of it like Leave It to Beaver where everything is clean and sanitized and the worst you have to worry about is Eddie Haskel and his mischievous ways. Mad Men is a more unvarnished look back that doesn’t gloss over the messiness of life. Honestly lovelies, neither is a perfect picture. They are both fiction. However we are talking about a real period of American life that is often pointed to by christians in general and evangelicals in particular, as a time when things were simpler, better and frankly closer to what God intended. After all, the marriages and families I see in the Bible look just like the Cunningham’s on Happy Days. 😉

Personally, I have no desire to go back to the way things were.

Christian Piatt wrote a great article about a year ago titled: GOP Nostalgia? Only Christian White Men were Better Off Back Then in which he said in part,

The fact is that, unless you’re a white, Christian, straight male, there’s little to look back to and say “yeah, I was better off back then.”… To call for a return to the good old days is, in some ways, a marginalization of those for whom history has meant progress. For the majority of Americans today, turning back the clock means losing ground, acceding power or opportunity and returning to a time of greater imbalance and division.”

Sadly, the church, whom I love seems to be stuck in a nostalgic longing that is really nothing more than a mirage. It offers the illusion of a cold drink of water but for many they find only a mouthful of sand and the scorching wind of shame. Heck even some of us raised in the church who know how beautiful and life-giving our communities truly can be, all to often have found our mouths filled with sand rather than the cool and refreshing living water.

Those who feel their privilege slipping away continue to grasp at an unhealthy nostalgia responsible for keeping the church on the wrong side of history way to often. It is what makes and has made people justify slavery and segregation or oppose women’s suffrage, a woman’s right to own property, interracial marriage, women in church leadership and gay marriage. (Even when people believe they are excluding people because of unrepentant sin I still call B.S. as we often hold the door open with a big smile for people who continue to stumble when it comes to gluttony, lust, gossip and lying while slamming the door in the face of homosexuals under the guise of “unrepentance”.) When people perceive their place of privilege is slipping away, rather than rejoicing that others will share in the freedom and forgiveness which they have enjoyed, often defend and set up barriers that push people further away from Jesus. Once again, someone else addresses this issue of priviledge much better than I can. I encourage you to read The Distress of the Priviledged by Doug Muder. He explains it like this:

As the culture evolves, people who benefitted from the old ways invariably see themselves as victims of change. The world used to fit them like a glove, but it no longer does. Increasingly, they find themselves in unfamiliar situations that feel unfair or even unsafe. Their concerns used to take center stage, but now they must compete with the formerly invisible concerns of others.

Then this morning as lady luck or Sarah Bessey would have it, I woke up to a post which exposes another facet of the mirage with a fierce and brave vulnerability. In Which I am Damaged Goods is a post way too many of us could have written. Sarah shares a time when she was served the sand of shame and judgement rather than the living water of love and forgiveness. She was taught that because she was a woman who had been sexually active she was damaged beyond repair and that she should be thankful if there was a christian man out there who would have her as a wife. While this may seem at first blush unrelated to a nostalgia for an earlier time, rest assured, it is. It is nostalgia for a time when a girl who gets pregnant (not the boy of course) would be sent away “to camp” for the summer or a divorcee would automatically be viewed as desperate, a home wrecker or “hot to trot”. “Oh Myyyyy,” as George Takai would say. With just a few google searches you can find church leader after church leader (including women) who will state unequivocally or simply subtly imply that women’s sexuality and/or women in general are something to be feared, suppressed and even demonized. Tertullian went as far as describing woman as the root of all evil. This is yet another mirage of sinking sand that brings death, shame and bondage rather than life, reconciliation and freedom. A current hotly debated question in the church is, “Why are young people leaving in droves?” Perhaps it is partly because they are tired of receiving a glass of sand when they are begging for water.

Please lovelies, let us remember this, Jesus came not to condemn (John 3:17) but to bring freedom and forgiveness.

This of course is just one example. The non-drinkers exclude the drinkers, the men exclude the women, the heterosexuals exclude the LGBT community, the races exclude each other, the hits just keep on coming and love loses –or so it seems. As a friend of mine (I can’t remember who, if it is you send me a note so I can give you credit) said in a Facebook post this week, many in the church upon arriving at the banquet to which they themselves were uninvited have set themselves up as doorkeepers, judging who is and who is not worthy to enter. Do they not see the irony? None of us were invited –yet we got to come in. And now here they sit callously turning away those whom Jesus would let in. Let that not be me. I say swing wide the doors; Come in. Taste and see that He is good.

As always my lovelies, I remain hopeful. Behold, Jesus is making all things new. He is NOT making all things the way they used to be. He is making all things NEW! Make no mistake, love will win. Look around. There are more and more people who shout and whisper and sing, “Come in! Come in! All are welcome. There is enough living water for us all.

LORD JESUS, May my judgements never push people away from you. Please show mercy to those who having already received grace for themselves would push away others whom you came for. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. AMEN.

——————————

As we were driving home I was reminded of the song Pieces of You by Jewel.  It drove home the point that we are all connected. When we exclude, shame and hurt each other we cut off our nose to spite our face. Any damage we do to each other, we do to ourselves.

She’s an ugly girl, does it make you want to kill her?
She’s an ugly girl, do you want to kick in her face?
She’s an ugly girl, she doesn’t pose a threat.
She’s an ugly girl, does she make you feel safe?
Ugly girl, ugly girl, do you hate her
‘Cause she’s pieces of you.

She’s a pretty girl, does she make you think nasty thoughts?
She’s a pretty girl, do you want to tie her down?
She’s a pretty girl, do you call her a bitch?
She’s a pretty girl, did she sleep with your whole town?
Pretty girl, pretty girl, do you hate her
‘Cause she’s pieces of you.

You say he’s a faggot, does it make you want to hurt him?
You say he’s a faggot, do you want to bash in his brain?
You say he’s a faggot, does he make you sick to our stomach?
You say he’s a faggot, are you afraid you’re just the same?
Faggot, Faggot, do you hate him
‘Cause he’s pieces of you?

You say he’s a Jew, does it mean that he’s tight?
You say he’s a Jew, do you want to hurt his kids tonight?
You say he’s a Jew, he’ll never wear that funny hat again.
You say he’s a Jew, as though being born were a sin.
Oh Jew, oh Jew, do you hate him
‘Cause he’s pieces of you.