Emerging Women

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of feminists as asexual, hirsute Amazons in Birkenstocks that has reigned on campus for the past two decades has been replaced by a breezy vision of hip, smart young women.”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 Linda Jamentz
Crossposted from the Christian Feminism blog.

awhile back makeesha had an excellent post on her blog about feminism and the chaos of labels. something she said has stuck with me all this time. she said:

One thing to keep in mind is that labels are self identifiers, they’re really not intended for us to place on others – they’re for others to place on themselves. In other words, they’re not supposed to be used as a way to judge others or put others in a box based on OUR understanding of that label.

i am reminded of her admonition when i identify myself as a “christian feminist”. christian feminism, as i see it, is a far cry from feminism. all one has to do is look at the wiki on feminism and see the numerous types of feminism there are to know that we are only one specific type of feminism rooted in christian thought. where we agree with the other types of feminism i rejoice and where we disagree i hope to extend grace.

the problem i’ve run into is that the f-word–feminism–is highly controversial. many years ago when i was in college one of my friends asked if i would help her with something. i’m not sure if it was a class assignment or what but i agreed. what we did was go around and informally ask people we knew in our dorm what they thought of the word “feminism”. the results were overwhelmingly negative and i remember internally thinking that i’d never claim to be a “feminist” as i didn’t want that negative baggage attached to me. well, now it’s 20+ years later and in some ways things haven’t changed much, especially in some church circles.

what i’ve found is when people are engaging in all-or-nothing thinking and i say i am a “christian feminist” all they hear is “feminist” and i subsequently get pigeonholed into a box in which i most definitely do not fit that is at odds with their belief system and values. maybe i should be more courageous and be willing to say i’m a feminist, but i see christian feminism as being quite different from the secular liberal feminism that many disdain. further, i find it quite disturbing when i see christians unable or unwilling, whichever the case may be, to think in more nuanced terms.

sadly, i’ve seen too many christians swing from one extreme of christianity to another not realizing those are not the only options. usually this is a swing from christian fundamentalism to liberal christianity or vice versa. a psychiatric nurse told me that in psychology there is even a term for this sort of thinking. it is called splitting because the person is unable to view life in a more balanced or moderate fashion but splits everything up into black and white categories, good vs. bad, all or nothing. this is not to say that sometimes things are good vs. bad but i believe it may not be as often as some would have us believe.

as this world we live in is changing many of us have left behind those limiting categories of either/or and moved on to seeing things in a more complex fashion. some associate this with postmodernism with it’s bothand thinking. i know some people think it’s not possible to be a “christian feminist” as “christian” is usually associated with conservatism and “feminism” with liberalism. thankfully, we are moving into an era where the reductionist thinking of modernity, which has a tendency to isolate and marginalize one as the Other, is being replaced by a more generous, complex, and inclusive way of thinking in postmodernity.

Linda Jamentz is currently a participant in the emerging/missional conversation on the blog Christian Feminism.

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?