women are the anti-feminists
Rick Merrill
them in the hospital nursery. I'm in a surgical gown with a
mask and cap and a baby in one arm and a bottle in the other
listening to the conversations which went like this: 'I got
my boy; I won't be back!" 'She got girl, she'll be back."
and so on. I was shocked, surprised and ever since I've been
"a feminist." I'm the father.
2. Our church has been taken over by "elders" which the new bylaws
say must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men
only' turn out to be women! Why?
Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
Are some women afraid (subconsciously) of having some other
women be an 'overseer' over their husband?
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Black Hat
be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men only' turn out to be
women! Why?
Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?"
Never mind the feminist movement.
Has glaucoma or cataracts (or Alzheimer's disease) reached all those
elders?
Ever walk into a church during a service? I'll bet the farm at least
two-thirds of the audience are female. Mostly older women or soccer moms
taking their kids to get some religion while Daddy plays golf or mows the
lawn (like he's got a reservation in Heaven).
Jesus Christ!
Just about every church in the US would fall apart without all those women
volunteers, especially the Catholic churches.
This would be especially absurd in the Methodist church, where the
pastors are regarded as "hired guns" and the members are the real church.
Megan
internalized oppression. In that tune, there are whole philosophies on
the nature of oppression and repression (see Marilyn Frye and Michel
Foucault).
In my personal opinion, what feminism today lacks that the feminism of
the 60s and 70s had is consciousness raising groups, in which women
could sit and talk about how the oppressions they faced in daily life.
Women's Studies classes are very much like consciousness raising
groups, but only people privileged enough to take university courses
are able to access them.
The biggest problem is that we have seen so much change since the 70s
that it is harder now for people to recognize sexism and racism. They
[acts of sexism and racism] are a bit more subtle now, especially in
light of this obsession with "political corectness." Without
consciousness raising, women can't even notice their own sexism, even
when it is sexist against themselves.
Rick Merrill wrote:
> 1. When my twin daughters were born we elected to bottle feed
> them in the hospital nursery. I'm in a surgical gown with a
> mask and cap and a baby in one arm and a bottle in the other
> listening to the conversations which went like this: 'I got
> my boy; I won't be back!" 'She got girl, she'll be back."
> and so on. I was shocked, surprised and ever since I've been
> "a feminist." I'm the father.
There is quite a lot of feminist discussion on the topic of women's
internalized oppression. In that tune, there are whole philosophies on
the nature of oppression and repression (see Marilyn Frye and Michel
Foucault).
In my personal opinion, what feminism today lacks that the feminism of
the 60s and 70s had is consciousness raising groups, in which women
could sit and talk about the oppressions they faced in daily life.
Women's Studies classes are very much like consciousness raising
groups, but only people privileged enough to take university courses
are able to access them.
The biggest problem is that we have seen so much change since the 70s
that it is harder now for people to recognize sexism and racism. They
[acts of sexism and racism] are a bit more subtle now, especially in
light of this obsession with "political corectness." Without
consciousness raising, women can't even notice their own sexism, even
when it is sexist against themselves.
> 2. Our church has been taken over by "elders" which the new bylaws
> say must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men
> only' turn out to be women! Why?
>
> Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
>
> Are some women afraid (subconsciously) of having some other
> women be an 'overseer' over their husband?
I am reading a book called "The Veil and the Male Elite" by Fatima
Mernissi. It's about women in Islam and I think the question you raise
can be answered by something she wrote in her book. In chapter one,
"The Muslim and Time" she talks about the West's obsession with pushing
forward into the future, and how time has become a major oppressive
"entity" of society. The point she makes is this:
"And how do we react to this speeding-up of time, to this propulsion of
the present into the future? By sliding, sorrowfully, wounded, and
infantilized, back toward our origins, toward an anesthetizing past
where we were protected, where we had dominion over the rising and
setting of the sun. We glide like tightrope walkers along a taut wire
that leads us back to the celebration of our ancestors -- the funeral
of our sad present. Appealed to from time to time, our ancestors can be
a resource for us, but if they take over, they devour the dawn and the
sun and turn our dreams into nightmares."
She's talking about Muslims in this case, but I do believe that it
applies to all religions, and it can probably explain, at least
partially, why some women would object to having women religious
leaders.
Rick Merrill
...
> Just about every church in the US would fall apart without all those women
> volunteers, especially the Catholic churches.
> This would be especially absurd in the Methodist church, where the
> pastors are regarded as "hired guns" and the members are the real church.
>
Absolutely true. We have the pastor join the church - used to be very
democratic before it went elitist.
Rick Merrill
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Very interesting author: Mernissi’s
mother always taught her how to behave and carry herself as a woman:
“you should learn how to shout and protest just as you learnt how to
walk and talk.” She has a PhD from Brandeis.
Trying to deconstruct the quote from Mernissi, I think she is saying
that people regress when threatened by rapid changes in society.
But the opposite may be equally true: the faster things change the more
change people want and work towards.
Which way people lean may be a generational thing: senior women prefer
regression while the young are ready to "shout and protest."
Chain
> say must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men
> only' turn out to be women! Why?
> Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
Hi...I see these women who wish to defend and support their deep
religious beliefs as feminists. The feminist movement HAS reached
them...they are saying that they, as women, wish to uphold the tenents
of their religion which has proscribed rules and roles for the genders.
And, as women who are choosing what they wish and are capable of
accomplishing, I support that choice. I dont AGGREE with that
particular choice, but I support it.
I dont think its wise to replace an oppressive patriarchy with an
oppressive matriarchy. Other women dont have to act and feel as you
think a feminist should.
As for the gender of kids....I dont care what people prefer. Myself, Id
rather have girls than boys. Does that mean I hate boys? No, not at
all. It merely means my preference in my offspring is female.
Chain
Megan
>>2. Our church has been taken over by "elders" which the new bylaws
>>say must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men
>>only' turn out to be women! Why?
>
>
>>Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
>
>
>
> Hi...I see these women who wish to defend and support their deep
> religious beliefs as feminists. The feminist movement HAS reached
> them...they are saying that they, as women, wish to uphold the tenents
> of their religion which has proscribed rules and roles for the genders.
> And, as women who are choosing what they wish and are capable of
> accomplishing, I support that choice. I dont AGGREE with that
> particular choice, but I support it.
How do you know these women made an informed decision about their
religion and came to the conclusion that women have no place in
religious leadeship? I am curious, because as I see it, given the
information that Rick Merrill provided us, their is not enough evidence
to say they were being feminist or not. We have no insight into how they
decided that women shouldn't be religious leaders. The way a decision is
reached is often just as important as the decision itself.
> I dont think its wise to replace an oppressive patriarchy with an
> oppressive matriarchy. Other women dont have to act and feel as you
> think a feminist should.
I don't think anybody said we should replace one with the other.
> As for the gender of kids....I dont care what people prefer. Myself, Id
> rather have girls than boys. Does that mean I hate boys? No, not at
> all. It merely means my preference in my offspring is female.
Why do you want a daughter?
Not all "preference" is merely prefence. I'm not attacking your own
preference at all, but I am saying that is very important to critically
exam any "preference" at all when it comes to gender, because to have a
prefence is to be sexist. It is because of preference that female
infanticide is such a huge problem in India and China. Claire Renzetti
and Daniel Curran do a good job of explaining this in "Gender
Socialization." They point out that "in an international survey of
geneticists conducted in 1988, 24 percent of thoe in Britain, 47 percent
in Canada, and 60 percent in Hungary expressed the belief that sex
selection is morally acceptable. In light of such findings, as well as
rapid advances in medical technology and the continued preference for
male children in most cultures, ethicists' concerns about a potential
rise in gendercide seem far less paranois than they may have seemed just
twenty years ago."
So, what gender people prefer their child(ren) to be is probably pretty
important.
Megan
>
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Very interesting author: Mernissi’s
> mother always taught her how to behave and carry herself as a woman:
> “you should learn how to shout and protest just as you learnt how to
> walk and talk.” She has a PhD from Brandeis.
Yes, Mernissi's work is brilliant and very accessible.
>
> Trying to deconstruct the quote from Mernissi, I think she is saying
> that people regress when threatened by rapid changes in society.
I don't think she is saying that people "regress." The word regress
implies a clear superiority of one time over the other. Indeed,
Mernissi's book argues that the history of Islam is rooted in equality
and justice. She is saying, in the paragraph I quoted, that people seek
comfort in the past, in tradition and in ancestors when change happens
too quickly.
>
> But the opposite may be equally true: the faster things change the more
> change people want and work towards
I think that is only true to an extent. If there is such thing as the
political pendulum, then fast change probably encourages people to want
and work towards change until it's too fast for them, in which case they
will swing back to the past. Often in times of great change (and
technological advancement) people can only remember who they are by
remembering who they were.
> Which way people lean may be a generational thing: senior women prefer
> regression while the young are ready to "shout and protest."
I think those are stereotypes. There are many loud "senior" women and
many quiet (indeed, non-feminist) young people in general.
Michael Snyder
> Chain wrote:
>
>>>2. Our church has been taken over by "elders" which the new bylaws
>>>say must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men
>>>only' turn out to be women! Why?
>>
>>
>>>Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi...I see these women who wish to defend and support their deep
>>religious beliefs as feminists. The feminist movement HAS reached
>>them...they are saying that they, as women, wish to uphold the tenents
>>of their religion which has proscribed rules and roles for the genders.
>>And, as women who are choosing what they wish and are capable of
>>accomplishing, I support that choice. I dont AGGREE with that
>>particular choice, but I support it.
>
>
> How do you know these women made an informed decision about their
> religion and came to the conclusion that women have no place in
> religious leadeship?
Well all we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt, eh?
To do otherwise implies that they are not responsable adults.
Rick Merrill
> Rick Merrill wrote:
>
>>
>>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Very interesting author: Mernissi’s
>>mother always taught her how to behave and carry herself as a woman:
>>“you should learn how to shout and protest just as you learnt how to
>>walk and talk.” She has a PhD from Brandeis.
>
>
> Yes, Mernissi's work is brilliant and very accessible.
>
>
>>Trying to deconstruct the quote from Mernissi, I think she is saying
>>that people regress when threatened by rapid changes in society.
>
>
> I don't think she is saying that people "regress." The word regress
> implies a clear superiority of one time over the other.
Going back to the way things once were implies only that the individual
prefers it.
> Indeed,
> Mernissi's book argues that the history of Islam is rooted in equality
> and justice.
But NOT for woman, who in Islam are still treated more as property than
as individuals. This was true in Judaism and Christianity and still is
to some extent: "who gives this woman in marriage..." is just an
extension of passing along a woman as a property to be taken care of.
> She is saying, in the paragraph I quoted, that people seek
> comfort in the past, in tradition and in ancestors when change happens
> too quickly.
Yes, I agree and that does give some insight into why many women are
against feminism as they perceive it.
>>But the opposite may be equally true: the faster things change the more
>>change people want and work towards
>
>
> I think that is only true to an extent. If there is such thing as the
> political pendulum, then fast change probably encourages people to want
> and work towards change until it's too fast for them, in which case they
> will swing back to the past. Often in times of great change (and
> technological advancement) people can only remember who they are by
> remembering who they were.
>
>
>>Which way people lean may be a generational thing: senior women prefer
>>regression while the young are ready to "shout and protest."
>
>
> I think those are stereotypes. There are many loud "senior" women and
> many quiet (indeed, non-feminist) young people in general.
>
All generalizations are false, including ours.
BUT WHY are some women so opposed to women in 'power'???
Chain
the decision itself". I dont really aggree. Lets take a hypothetical
choicer of action X. One person did a reasoned search of the bible,
science, her soul, etc, and came to the decision that yes, the choice
of action X was perfectly sound.
The next person experienced a divine revelation from the Mighty Purple
Unicorn, and the information about action X was vouchafed unto him or
her.
To BOTH people, the course of action is reasonable. Yes, the ideas to
DO X were arrived rather differently; one can say the first person used
logic and reason, the second used nothing that we can see as logic.
However, both will see that choice as valid, and I can not say to the
second man that his choice is wrong or invalid because I fail to see
how he arrived at that conclusion. I can ONLY say that it is an
UNREASONED choice.
So, the women who were told that men are in charge, and are happy with
that, and choose to abide by that ruling....their choice is as real as
a woman who through Bible study, arrives at the same conclusion.
I know. Next you will say one is an informed choice, the other is not.
So, one CANT really choose unless one knows what they are
choosing...real and true informed consent. Again, I maintain that an
unreasoned choice is still a VALID one....in this situation. Certainly
an uninformed choice holds no validity where life or death is concerned
(like consent for surgery).
Next issue: gender selection. I have utterly no problem with a woman
choosing the gender of her child. I certainly would wish that option,
so Id not deny it to anyone else. As for WHY I want a girl, thats
unimportant. Any of my reasons youd likely not understand or accept,
and I have no desire to try to defend myself as its not needed.
I dont care if people choose boys. I dont care if people choose girls.
I care that people can CHOOSE. And that applies to choices I dont like
also. Like the choice of women to support that women not be allowed to
lead in Church.
Sincerely,
chain
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
. . . . I was shocked, surprised and ever since I've been "a feminist."
I'm the father.
* * * * *
Thank you for joining. The work to be done is enormous. Select some, if
your baby let's you have the time. Even an occasional letter to an
editor or a legislator or a contribution to a feminist organization
helps.
You wrote:
* * * * *
2. Our church has been taken over by "elders" which the new bylaws say
must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men only' turn
out to be women! Why?
Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
* * * * *
Apart from thealogical reasons or excuses, secular factors contribute.
One, the men may be afraid that open competition means they won't get
the jobs. Two, in many male-led organizations, the womyn whom the men
encourage to participate are those who don't believe they should lead.
Three, when womyn do what you saw they may be showing men their support
for whatever the men or leaders think is important, with less concern
for content. Four, the men may have asked or told them to do so, in a
belief that womyn doing the defending makes the sexist position seem
less sexist and therefore more credible to other womyn. There are
probably more reasons I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Perhaps feminism didn't persuade these womyn, but not for want of
trying. Feminism has grown in popularity, albeit with some dilution of
content, and with the growth in popularity more womyn have moved into
positions where they could do more to advance feminism and female
power.
Many womyn's organizations have little to do with feminism and instead
serve as auxiliaries defined by sex. Churches are infamous for ladies'
auxiliaries. Perhaps you know of a feminist organization that focuses
on the faith community you've joined, and perhaps that feminist
organization would like hearing from you and having a way to
communicate with womyn in your church. You could introduce them to each
other.
You asked:
* * * * *
Are some women afraid (subconsciously) of having some other women be an
'overseer' over their husband?
* * * * *
Yes, and not even subconsciously.
Many men think their life is better if womyn aren't in competition, and
many womyn want men to be comfortable so the womyn can be, too, and so
many womyn agree with the men.
It takes vision to overcome that.
-- Nick
E-mail:
Nick_Levinson
Domain:
yahoo.com
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
female.
. . . .
Just about every church in the US would fall apart without all those
women volunteers . . . .
* * * * *
Maybe a vote to intersect Wicca and feminism? Wouldn't be the first.
If not that, maybe womyn should strengthen feminist religious advocacy
organizations for various faith communities, pushing the insider men
from the vantage point of womyn being of the faith but, being
organizationally outside, not restrainable by the men's leadership in
the church.
-- Nick
Nick (Nick Levinson)
Would you elaborate? I think of secular reasons for the rejection of
womyn as religious leaders, and I'm missing something here.
When I heard the preamble to the proposed Iraqi constitution recently,
I compared it to the U.S. preamble: the Iraqi's emphasized pride in
their history; ours is more anticipatory. (That could be explained by
the relative newness of the U.S. in 1789 and the relative ancientness
of Persia today, so the comparison of preambles may be invalid.) Is she
suggesting that womyn move society toward one time perception rather
than the other, and then are rejected as womyn?
-- Nick
Megan
> Hi Megan...you say "the way a decision is reached is as important as
> the decision itself". I dont really aggree. Lets take a hypothetical
> choicer of action X. One person did a reasoned search of the bible,
> science, her soul, etc, and came to the decision that yes, the choice
> of action X was perfectly sound.
Actually, I said "The way a decision is reached is OFTEN just as
important as the decision itself." I agree that it's not ALWAYS just as
important. Things like social context matter a lot.
we can take abortion as a good example as an issue with social context.
Most feminists would argue that a woman pregnant with a female baby who
chooses to have an abortion because she would not have the resources to
properly care for that child would have a good reason to have an
abortion.
HOWEVER, most feminists would also argue that a woman who chooses to
have an abortion because the ultra sound indicated that the baby is
female and she doesn't want a female baby would be an awful reason to
abort a child. That's because of the social context behind such a
decision.
Yes, a woman has the fundamental right to choose, but the central issue
here is how she is making that decision: the social context and
attitudes abouts boys and girls influence her decision. That's why it
matters what she chose.
> So, the women who were told that men are in charge, and are happy with
> that, and choose to abide by that ruling....their choice is as real as
> a woman who through Bible study, arrives at the same conclusion.
>
> I know. Next you will say one is an informed choice, the other is not.
> So, one CANT really choose unless one knows what they are
> choosing...real and true informed consent. Again, I maintain that an
> unreasoned choice is still a VALID one....in this situation. Certainly
> an uninformed choice holds no validity where life or death is concerned
> (like consent for surgery).
how is something a choice if there is no alternative? (making an
informed decision clearly implies that there is more than one
alternative to choose from).
yes, an unreasoned choice is still a valid choice. but an unreasoned
choice is a choice made without rationality, not a choice made when
there is no visible alternative. a choice without alternative is not a
choice.
as far as women choosing that women should not be allowed to be
religious leaders, i still maintain that there is not enough
information to decide if these women truly made an informed decision.
but I would like to point out that if muslim women knew that the
current definition of "fundamental" islam is quite antithetical to the
teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, they might be less
inclined not to elect women to government positions.
> Next issue: gender selection. I have utterly no problem with a woman
> choosing the gender of her child. I certainly would wish that option,
> so Id not deny it to anyone else. As for WHY I want a girl, thats
> unimportant. Any of my reasons youd likely not understand or accept,
> and I have no desire to try to defend myself as its not needed.
>
> I dont care if people choose boys. I dont care if people choose girls.
> I care that people can CHOOSE. And that applies to choices I dont like
> also. Like the choice of women to support that women not be allowed to
> lead in Church.
What I was trying to get at with the gender preference issue is that
it's eugenics. To say you don't care what people choose, just that they
CAN choose when it comes to issues like sex&gender (or race? or
religion? or eye color?) *AND REPRODUCTION* (that's the important part)
is to effectively ignore eugenics and the many times eugenics has been
and continues to be an issue in the world. Because of sexism (gender
preference) there are girls who are sold as young as 2 years old as sex
slaves in Thailand. Because of sexism (gender preference) women abort
baby girls until they have boys. Because of sexism (gender preference)
parents send their baby girls into orphanages, where they often die.
If people were choosing boys and girls equally, choosing the sex of a
child wouldn't BE an issue. but the world (as a whole) continues to
consistently choose (prefer) boys over girls, and that's why it's
important.
Megan
> Megan wrote:
>
> But NOT for woman, who in Islam are still treated more as property than
> as individuals. This was true in Judaism and Christianity and still is
> to some extent: "who gives this woman in marriage..." is just an
> extension of passing along a woman as a property to be taken care of.
The entire purpose of writing "The Veil and the Male Elite" was to
PROVE that real, original Islam, as reported by the Prophet Muhammad,
makes all women AND men equal. You obviously didn't read her book,
becayse she makes i very obvious that true "fundamental" islam values
and respect women, giving them a voice in government and choices in
religious practice and life.
the "tradition" Mernissi is alluding to in the text I quoted is the
Hadith, which are collections of saying and actions of the Prophet
Muhammad ("hadith" means tradition). They we not recorded until long
after his death. Most Muslims do not know all Hadith. The point
Mernissi makes about the perceptions people have about the Hadith is
that their perceptions are FALESE. She also points out several flaws in
the science of the Hadith, which make many Hadith, especially all the
ones which degrade women and treat them as property false.
You might also want to look into "Gender in Islam" by Leila Ahmed.
>
> BUT WHY are some women so opposed to women in 'power'???
I gave you my answer to that question. Obviously, there are many
theories about such, and you don't agree with mine.
Paul Ciszek
Megan <megan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The entire purpose of writing "The Veil and the Male Elite" was to
>PROVE that real, original Islam, as reported by the Prophet Muhammad,
>makes all women AND men equal. You obviously didn't read her book,
>becayse she makes i very obvious that true "fundamental" islam values
>and respect women, giving them a voice in government and choices in
>religious practice and life.
Doesn't the Koran require the eyewitness testimony of two women
as proof of an event, while the testimony of one man is accepted
as a similar level of proof?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled | --Me, plagarizing Clarke and Napoleon
Rick Merrill
Obviously. I am finding it hard to appreciate that "oppression" has
been "internalized", and I apologize for insisting on some cognitive
explanation when it may well be psychological. There's no argument that
it is emotional!
But what can be said or done - just wait another generation?
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
Not all "preference" is merely prefence. I'm not attacking your own
preference at all, but I am saying that is very important to critically
exam any "preference" at all when it comes to gender, because to have a
prefence is to be sexist. It is because of preference that female
infanticide is such a huge problem in India and China. . . .
* * * * *
I don't know Chain's reason, but I can see this as affirmative action,
since gendercide of infants is generally femicide, and improving
females' count improves females' odds, which is good.
Maybe someone just wants female companionship and will retard the
daughter from full power achievement. But in sex selection that reason
seems uncommon.
Maybe one should fear putting too much pressure on offspring to match
parents' desires, and one should, but how much is too much? High
expectations are a norm; we often want our children to become doctors
and lawyers and Presidents or to marry one, and, while excess can be
damaging, high expectations short of excess seem to work well, so maybe
the same can be said of high expectations to meet feminist aspirations.
Affirmative action alone isn't going to solve the problem of sexism
expressed through infanticide; the sexism itself has to be zeroed out
so parents will be as likely to want daughters as they do sons. At
least it has to be reduced.
-- Nick
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
say must be "a man" - and the most vociferous defenders of 'men only'
turn out to be women! Why?
Has the feminist 'movement' failed to reach them?
religious beliefs as feminists. The feminist movement HAS reached
them...they are saying that they, as women, wish to uphold the tenents
of their religion which has proscribed rules and roles for the genders.
And, as women who are choosing what they wish and are capable of
accomplishing, I support that choice. I dont AGGREE with that
particular choice, but I support it.
religion and came to the conclusion that women have no place in
religious leadeship?
To do otherwise implies that they are not responsable adults.
Here's a conundrum: A member of the church found sexism and objected to
it. He, however, is male. If anything, the effect on him is
presumptively neutral or beneficial to him, depending on whether ascent
into leadership is open to him and eased by the bar to womyn. (He might
be close to a womon who wishes to ascend but can't. Or the church might
change for the better in other ways if womyn were admitted into
leadership. However, let's assume the more common situation, namely
that he would benefit or be unaffected.)
(As a legal aside, it's relevant that in Federal law a man does not
generally have standing to sue for anti-female sex discrimination.
Standing belongs to the aggrieved; the Federal courts generally do not
recognize a man as having a grievance because a womon was discriminated
against, even for a class action. But law is not the only forum for
redressing sex discrimination.)
Should he shut up on the ground that only female members of the church
have any right to initiate a complaint?
I'd say no, for five reasons. He may object, as he did. And doing so
does not demean the womyn who endorsed the status quo, or demean their
agency. Nor does his complaint force the womyn to support him. They may
oppose him. He may still validly seek change.
One, the basic tenets of that church are apparently set by men; womyn
are reduced to not much more than agreeing or leaving. The primary
responsibility lies with the men. They have the power to change. Rick,
therefore, consistently with feminism, may challenge their failure to
change to date.
Two, if the church's male preference is thealogical, he may compare the
alleged thealogy to his own beliefs and test one against the other. He
doesn't have to be female to do that on this question, because he may
decide if he supports the church's application of its thealogical
authority and, if not, attempt to persuade it to amend its ways.
Three, religious institutions usually interact somehow with the secular
society around them. Some engage in politics; some provide
get-togethers where business leaders who share a faith also begin or
cement business deals and where people find jobs; some buy land and
operate farms or communes or schools or entire live-in communities that
affect the surrounding community simply by being apart from it yet
present. Whatever the relationship of the church to the surrounding
community, Rick may want it to bring to it values that are consistent
with his and therefore that credit him as a member of that community
and of the church.
Four, he may choose a church. Several may share his basic faith. He may
prefer to commit to the one closest to his views.
Five, he may find means of carrying out his values that are independent
of any church.
Womyn in the church are very much part of his calculus, or should be.
However, that the womyn he knows there may be unanimous in supporting
the status quo and may even prefer an even more sexist model need not
end the question for him (as it wouldn't for me). That's because the
focus is not on rescuing anyone who doesn't want to be. The focus is on
the role of womyn in society at large, and churches being sexist, as
some are, impedes womyn, so the urge to introduce equality may not
depend on the womyn who are currently in secondary roles there.
The womyn who are inside are, I assume, responsible adults. I agree
with Chain and Michael on that. They may have found no alternative to
either agreeing with the exclusion of themselves and their sistren or
leaving the church, painful if the church otherwise means a lot to
them. I agree with Megan that their decision may not reflect a deeper
agreement, since their opinions on point may not have mattered to those
who can and do choke off their ascent. That, under such conditions,
they might have chosen to stay anyway does reflect their agency, albeit
a more limited agency than is true of the men there. I support their
right to have more agency in their lives than they have now. The world
they live in and their church allow them less agency than men have. Yet
if the womyn inside for whatever reason like it as it is, I don't want
to rescue them. But if other womyn who share the church's values except
for the exclusion of womyn want to join its leadership, we may support
them, even if those presently inside don't want their company. That's
because the church presumably is not there solely to support the people
who are already inside, but also for its interaction with the
surrounding community and to support its future members, for whom a
path may have to be cut.
Comment?
-- Nick
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
. . . . .
I recommend Right-Wing Women, by Andrea Dworkin, and Backlash, by Susan
Faludi, the latter dated as to research but its basic points remaining
valid. Other books address this, too.
Beside that, many people evaluate unfamiliar phenomena by relying on
familiar sources that offer evaluations of what they wonder about. They
trust the familiar. Feminism has had to suffer many evaluations by
nonfeminists both in the mainstream who nowadays have ambivalences and
by thoroughgoing opponents who oppose anything liked by feminists.
Example: Sexual harassment being a problem (first noted in public by
feminists) is often disputed by womyn who believe a nice man just found
a womon reasonably attractive and nicely asked her out once and
promptly got slapped with a lawsuit. In reality, things almost never
can happen that way, but it's hard to get rid of the myths. If you
disprove one, someone's heard of another, and they don't rememer the
names and can't find phone numbers but they're sure it happened and you
can't verify it but since you can't disprove it either the tale
continues to float. Another example: In New York decades ago, divorce
laws were rewritten, and problems promptly arose with the new
formulations. Feminists wrere blamed for the changes. I understand
there were good reasons why feminists should not be blamed for them,
but even assuming that feminists had made substantial errors on the
question, to use that to decry all feminism is to paint with too wide a
brush. Yet the fear of feminism persists.
Feminism calls for change. Change often frightens. Therefore, feminism
often frightens. We'll just have to deal with it as we develop feminist
agendas and strategies.
Separately, you wrote:
* * * * *
All generalizations are false, including ours.
* * * * *
They needn't be. We may qualify them. If we say "most adult humans are
between three and seven feet tall", that's not false even though a few
are outside that range, because we did say "'most'". If we use an
absolute form that brooks no exceptions, we should use that form only
where it can be supported. And a generalization needn't be just one
sentence; context can be applied to its understanding.
-- Nick
Megan
>
> But what can be said or done - just wait another generation?
>
>
Now that's the real question. I don't know if waiting another generation
will work if our children continue to be reared in environments which
deny women their chance to be religious leaders. The Evangelicals even
have their own political camps designed to help them win spots in
elections (and ultimately the Presidential election), so who knows?
Megan
>
> Doesn't the Koran require the eyewitness testimony of two women
> as proof of an event, while the testimony of one man is accepted
> as a similar level of proof?
>
Actually, no. The passage from the Qur'an you are referring to is the
following:
"Oh! ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions
involving future obligation in a fixed period of time reduce them to
writing and get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not
two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses so
that if one of them errs the other can remind her." (Al-Qur'an 2:282)
I believe there are 4 passages in the Qur'an about women testifying as
witnesses, and this one is the only case which _might_ seem like a woman
witness is only worth half that of a man. But in "Qur'an and Woman"
Amina Wadud clarifies this really well.
The first point that Wadud makes is that the second woman called is not
actually a witness: "In the wording of this verse, both women are not
called as witness. One woman is desiganted to 'remind' the other: she
acts a corraborator. Although the women are two, they each function
differently."
The second point she makes is that context must be taken into account:
"In addition, there are some contextual consideations regarding the need
for more than a single witness in the first plac. The purpose is to see
that there is no error--intentionally or unintentionally--regarding the
terms of the contract."
She goes on to quote Fazlur Rahman:
"..since the testimony of a woman being considered of less value than
that of a man was dependent upon her weaker power of memory concerning
financial matters, when women became conversant with such matters--with
which there is not only nothing wrong but which is for the betterment of
society--their evidence can equal that of men."
"Thus," concludes Wadud, "the verse is significant to a particular
circumstance which can and has become obsolete."
But Wadud doesn't end there. She then also points out that the reason 2
witnesses were necessary was to protect from corruption. The witnesses
could support each other and not be persuaded to give untrue testimony.
Some more of what Wadud has to say on this matter:
"...considering that women could be coerced in that society, if one
witness was female, she would be easy prey for some male who wanted to
force her to disclaim her testimony. When there are two women, they can
support each other--especially in vuew of the term chose: if she
(tudilla) 'goes astray', the other can (tudhakkira) 'remind' her, or
'recall her attention' to the terms of the agreement. The single unit
which comprsises two women with distinct functions not only gives each
woman significant individual worth, but also forms a united front
against the other witness."
Wadud also points out that the 2-for-one formula doesn't hold up,
because if it did, then 2 male witnesses could be replaced with 4 female
witness, but there is no such alternative in the Qur'an. This attitude
toward witnesses only exists when discussing financial matters and does
not apply to any other circumstance in which women are needed for
testimony. Other circumstances which call for witnesses do not specify
gender and so, "anyone deemed capable of witnessing has the right to be
one."
Sorry for quoting so much Wadud, but she really analyzes the Qur'an
well. You might want to pick up the book, because there is more in
there. I just don't want to summarize it all.
-Megan
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
* * * * *
proof of an event, while the testimony of one man is accepted as a
similar level of proof?
Religion centers on faith and on personal connection. The Qu'ran, the
Bible, and the Torah all have good and bad things in them; and the
on-the-ground histories of all three have both good and bad. A scholar
reportedly recently discovered that one of the major motivators of
young male Muslim suicide bombers, the promise of 72 virgins in an
afterlife, is based on a mistranslation, that actually the promise
should be of 72 raisins. I assume the scholar will be roundly ignored
in Islam. Mohammad's best-known wife was a businesswomon and probably
came close to equality, whereas it's only assumed circumstantially that
Jesus had a wife (at least temporarily) and little or nothing is known
of her.
Clitoridectomy is widely ascribed to Islam and widely denied as having
any justification in Islam. Each group of believers has its own
decision about whether Islam demands clitoridectomy.
All three of these religions and several others deny that their
principal authorities (Bible, Qu'ran, and Torah) are subject to human
amendment. More important are the beliefs and practices of adherents.
That includes adhering to their respective books, but those books are
voluminous, and usually someone selects. That's why U.S. Christian
evangelists like quoting whatever they think is useful against
reproductive rights but not the parts that support incest: at least
many of us agree on opposing incest. They don't admit to selectivity
but they practice it, and that's why belief and practice can be more
important than text.
Liberal vs. conservative Islam: Liberal branches make less news in the
U.S. Each nation has its choice, tribes have theirs, and individuals
have theirs. The interaction is heavy; individual choice often gets
squashed, but enough tribes supporting a branch can make a nation
follow it, too.
The shrouds womyn have to wear are sexist, even though one Western
womon journalist traveling through Muslim regions took to liking the
shroud because she would be left alone in her travels, and she could
interview womyn because they trusted her.
If we're outsiders, it's particularly fruitless for us to try to reform
the basis of Islam or to try to get adherents to reinterpret it. We'd
have about the credibility of infidels. Better, I think, to approach
the good points and the problems from secular angles (e.g., not excuse
sexism on the ground that it's in the religion) and to let adherents
choose any thealogical arguments they prefer when leading the charge
for change. It's helpful to know the good and bad content and the
secular sides of each, because it's helpful to understand what womyn
face and to know what tools they might be able to use, but they'll know
better which ones they can use, and how and when.
-- Nick
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
"internalized", and I apologize for insisting on some cognitive
explanation when it may well be psychological. There's no argument that
it is emotional!
We learn from each other; but, more specifically, from whom? From those
we trust as sources. Consider how often a boy has questions that he's
sure his mother can't answer but that his father can. Throughout life
and adulthood we experience issues of trust and distrust between
friends who expected wider trust and yet are surprised at being trusted
as sources. Epistemology is complex.
We often trust each other because of gender, or, more specifically,
because of a sense of shared experience and shared values that makes a
same-gender mentor's answers likelier to be useful. A Christian priest
would generally be unwilling to trust a rabbi or an imam for a proper
interpretation of a passage in the old testament. A womon, quite apart
from feminism or modernity, asking a man for an opinion on what to wear
to a formal dinner or a disco can expect very different answers based
on gender, because based on the differnce in experience associated with
gender.
Part of what womyn learn from each other, and especially as grrls, is
how to relate to men and to society at large. We who are men might
describe a different model, but here's an example where men's opinions
are almost meaningless quite apart from feminism: A womon asking a man
about wearing makeup is likelier to be told that there's no need for
any; but she understands that she'll be reacted to differently if she
follows that advice, and that men might prefer the makeup but not say
so or not realize it until she does it (or doesn't).
Critically to feminism, as females negotiate a world populated by males
who hold the bulk of the power in human societies but don't hold 100%
of it, womyn learn where they'll be left relatively alone (e.g., the
kitchen and raising small children, but with no guarantees). Then, when
some womyn want to break out of those limits, and they consult with
others, the others will inform them that they can't or shouldn't do
that, because the men won't like it or because it's not natural or
because it doesn't work or because it's unnecessary. Some who ask
believe this; for some who ask, this advice works; and some break out
anyway, but they may be viewed as troublemakers by those who counseled
them against standing out, and may be resented for discarding their
advice and, worse, for succeeding, leading those who resent this to
step up efforts to keep others from going wayward.
You wrote:
* * * * *
But what can be said or done - just wait another generation?
* * * * *
It depends. Some of it has taken centuries; while society is speeding
through its development, some of it is regressive. Other changes are
much faster. We can't pressure, but neither should we be silent
everywhere. Often, we should just listen and read. Being listened to by
itself can be very empowering. The key is to leave control in a
female's hands as we would leave it in a male's, even if she sometimes
errs in using that control. Mistakes are almost inevitable, and most of
them are recoverable and temporary. And books and articles that come
from writers who pour out what they know save us from interrogating
friends for hours on end. Books and articles reach across cultures that
our friends may not even know.
-- Nick