Emerging Women

By Audrey deCoursey

The recent conviction for the murder of Annie Le, the Yale grad student, reveals a too-common pattern that we don’t want to see.

New Haven Police Chief James Lewis stressed that this crime was workplace violence, in an AP article:

“It is important to note that this is not about urban crime, university crime, domestic crime but an issue of workplace violence, which is becoming a growing concern around the country,” Lewis said, adding he wasn’t ruling out additional charges.

But the location of the crime is far less significant than the persons involved: a (white) man enacting violence against a woman (of color). There are many factors in play here, and preventing such horrendous crimes in the future will require a multi-pronged approach. But it won’t be ended unless we explore (and change) how men feel that lashing out violently against women resolves problems. Why do men resort to violence and why are women deemed their choice of victims?

It can be a scary world to be a woman in, and it shouldn’t be that way.

Audrey deCoursey is a Church of the Brethren pastor in Elgin, Illinois, and convener of the Womaen’s Caucus of the Church of the Brethren. This post originally appeared at her blog Brethren Priestess Online

What do our wedding traditions say about our perspectives on gender roles? I recently read an article (here) that outlined the ways in which modern feminists are breaking with wedding traditions. For some there were obvious choices – like not being given away by one’s father as if you were a piece of property- while others simply wanted to avoid consumeristic messages that tell women we are good only if we spend a lot of money making ourselves pretty. For these women, it’s not about tradition its about avoiding supporting messages they don’t agree with.

In some ways I get where they are coming from. Nearly ten years ago, I had the traditional wedding. Granted we cut the “obey” line out of the vows and both sets of parents gave us both away, but all the trappings were there. White dress complete with the butt bow, attendants, flowers, bad hair-do, unity candle, guest book – I had it all. I took my husbands name, stuck with all the traditions, and really didn’t think twice about what it all meant. But I kinda wish I had. My wedding wasn’t “me” – even back then. I had all that cheezy crap (oh looking floating candles as centerpieces) because I thought it was what was expected. I didn’t think about what I was supporting or what messages about women I was affirming. Now, I like the idea of weddings (and strongly support marriage), but I wish I had been comfortable enough with myself to just have the sort of celebration that affirmed who I was. The traditions and trappings matter far less to me than the purpose of commemorating the joining of two lives.

What about you all? Did issues of gender roles, tradition, and unspoken messages affect your weddings (or future wedding)? Do you wish they had? Are you glad they didn’t? Please share your thoughts.

So we all know sex sells, but so apparently does sexism. The following are a few ads from years gone by (for more see this blog post). I have to wonder at what point these were ever deemed even vaguely acceptable. But then I consider the gender stereotyping that is used to sell everything from detergent to hamburgers these days and realize not much has changed…

Naomi Wolf recently had a fascinating piece in The Washington Post about “Who Won Feminism?” In essence it was a review of Jennifer Scanlon’s book Bad Girls Go Everywhere: The Life of Helen Gurley Brown (the longtime editor of Cosmopolitan). The article is itself a glimpse at the differences between second and third wave feminism. Or more accurately, the opposition between “intellectual, ideological, group-oriented feminism against Brown’s pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, girl-power style.” And it is this individualistic third wave feminism that the article proclaims as the winner. As the author writes, “The stereotype of feminists as asexual, hirsute Amazons in Birkenstocks that has reigned on campus for the past two decades has been replaced by a breezy vision of hip, smart young women.” But as Wolf points out, both waves have their issues. While second wave feminism was too serious, intellectual, white, and tended towards anti-male tendencies, the third wave feminism lacks substance. Merely proclaiming girl power and being self-fulfilled do little to change the world. Wolf writes – “feminists are in danger if we don’t know our history, and a saucy tattoo and a condom do not a revolution make.” She calls for a synthesis of the two waves – a third way between the personal and the political aspects of feminism.

Having become a feminist, ironically enough, through my faith, this article intrigued me. There are aspects of both second and third wave feminism that I name and claim (so to speak), but I am not at home in either world. And given that the intellectual arguments of second wave feminists are just now being heard within certain parts of the church, which then attacks them as the worst form of depraved third wave feminism, this whole discussion exists on a different level for those of us within the church. I mean there are still men in the church who argue that women aren’t made in the image of God or that we have no identity apart from the headship of a male. It’s hard to argue that empowering women in the church will make us too individualistic when we still have our identity denied in certain sectors.

But I wonder if that very alienation from the conversation that Christian feminists face places us in the perfect spot to forge this third way? Can we let our faith that cares for justice and ending oppression temper both the anger and apathy of second and third wave feminism? We can take the good from the second wave that brings freedom and hope to the oppressed while rejecting their denial of the body and the joys of family. We can as image bearers learn from the third wave to be comfortable in our skin while not using it to humiliate and harm others. We who are are accustomed to personal devotions and Kingdom work can step right into a life-affirming feminism that is both personal and political.

Perhaps if we stop being afraid of the word, Christian feminists can define the future of the movement – redeeming and restoring into a timely and powerful force for good.

By April Ibarra

My husband and I have had this ongoing conversation over the last few years about “Christian” music. I love DFW’s own 89.7 Power FM for edgy alternative/rock music. He would rather listen to KISS FM 106.1. He says “If it’s good enough to be good, it’ll be on secular stations.” I will only partially agree, but it does make me wonder about some openly Christian artists, like Lauren Hill, who aren’t played. P.O.D. was a regular on there years ago. I have never heard, however, U2, though they are the buzz in Christian circles.

Dr. Kreider from Dallas Theological Seminary did a Culture & Theology event at the Village Church (Highland Village) back in the fall, titled The Music and Theology of U2. There’s also the U2charist, which is an Episcopal effort to incorporate U2 into its liturgy. An Alabama professor says their new album is the most “thoroughly Christian project to date” (Josh Kimball, Christian Post). Just do a Google cross-reference with “U2” and “theology” and there are numerous hits.

What happened? I grew up with U2, absolutely loving them. And I was a complete heathen. How could these rock stars, musical poets, cultural icons, how could they be the inspiration to rewrite the hymnals for generations to come?

How? They engaged the culture. They cussed, they cross-dressed, they spoke about human rights, they smoked, and they looked like they cared about the world and the people around them. They didn’t only market themselves to other Christians, though that’s where their roots began. They brandished a true and sincere artistry, and they didn’t hide it under a bowl, but let it shine. I watched them on Dave Letterman last night and I’ll see them Friday morning on Good Morning America. And whatever words they speak will be enjoyed deeply by Christian and non-Christian alike.

April Ibarra has been involved in ministry for eleven years with a particular interest in strengthening and supporting the faith of women on a local and global level. She has a BA in Ministry, and is currently working on her Masters in Theology.

So I saw my first “Sarah 2012″ bumper sticker the other day. It’s not that I didn’t assume that the political machines wouldn’t start moving as soon as Obama took office, but it was still a bit odd. What struck me was the use of Sarah Palin’s first name. It of course reminded me of how Hillary Clinton simply used her first name as well in her campaigning. It’s an intriguing quirk that powerful women running for office would use their first rather than last names, but I wonder if it is a good or a bad thing.

Part of me wants to believe that it is simply a positive identity statement. I recall thinking through the name issue a few years ago after reading an editorial in Christianity Today. It was written by a black man who detailed why he insists people call him by his title and last name. He knew that historically black men were disrespected and simply called by their first names (like children). For him it was a point of pride and proof that times had changed to be referred to in respectful terms. As I read his piece, I thought that for women the opposite is often true. Historically, we had no individual identity and were referred to as “Mrs. John Does.” Our identity was simply an extension of our husbands, our name his name. So for women to use their first name became a symbol of identity – asserting that we are people with our own distinct name. So when I see the “Sarah” or the “Hillary” campaign signs, I want to believe that it might just be a means of asserting identity.

But there is a part of me that also question if the use of the first names is simply a way to make strong women more acceptable. Our culture still fears powerful women – they get labeled as bitchy or scorned as cold if they are too assertive, knowledgeable, or decisive. So the use of the more familiar first name softens this perception – makes them appear more like children or best friends and less like the scary female leader. Instead of a term of respect it becomes an accommodation and a reminder of how far women still have to go to reach equality.

So what do you think? Why do these women simply use their first names? What is your personal preference in how you are addressed? Do you see difference in levels of respect regarding what people are called?

I don’t read a lot of modern fiction outside of the fantasy genre, so I was unaware of this trend I saw described in the Chicago Tribune today. Apparently it is the current thing in the publishing world to depict headless women on the covers of books. These women aren’t missing their heads, they just aren’t shown in the pictures. Instead one sees a generally sexy body devoid of the expressions and personality of a face. It’s trendy, it’s the current style, but why?

Some accuse the trend of giving into the sexist stereotype of the “ideal woman.” This is the “male fantasy of the woman who’s totally available and can’t talk back and doesn’t think and doesn’t judge” – if a woman has no head, she has no voice. Others though point out that these books are marketed to women not men and so instead present women with an ideal body they can fantasize is their own. “The covers may be in some ways playing to the anxieties that women have, which are not about being smart and using their brains and being successful, but are about whether they’re going to be able to attract men and get men to make commitments and be able to get married and have egalitarian relationships and have children and keep their careers.”

Either way, I personally find it a disturbing trend. As many of us here seek to claim a voice for women in the church and learn how to use our own voices, this tendency towards headless, voiceless women seems like a step backwards. I don’t think I’ve read any “headless women” books, so I don’t know what the books actually convey. Like I said, my fiction tastes are in the fantasy genre which usually portrays very strong women on the covers of books – celebrating women more than anything. But this tendency to obscure women on the covers does not seem celebratory to me, but reminds me instead of the days when women had to publish under male names in order to be read. Remove a women’s identity and she ceases to threaten.

What are your reactions to this trend? Is it harmless, or disturbing?