Christian Feminism: a pretty paradox

I was surfing my way through blog-land, trying to kill some time, when I stumbled across some old blogs by a friend of mine. Now, don't get me wrong: I love this girl to death. When it comes to political and social views, however, we are die-hard opposites. Two blogs of hers, in particular, got under my skin. Mightily. So, while I have the deepest adoration and respect for this lady-friend of mine, I'd like to take a moment to emerge from my mourning and play devil's (angel's?) advocate.

I'll even toss in a few Bible verses here and there, since some individuals in the "anti-feminist" camp draw their arguments from there.


I think that much of the anger, resentment, and general disdain that is directed towards feminism is largely a bi-product of unintentional ignorance. When something is different, contradictory, or *gasp* revolutionary, it's all too easy to label it as "subversive" or "wrong".

Alas, sterotypes are alive and well. We fear what we do not relate to or understand. Nicola Creegan elaborates on this concept in her article, "Is Christian Feminism Possible?": "Feminism is associated in many people’s minds only with lesbianism and with single women who don’t want children or families" (1).

Le sigh.

Just as we labeled the kid who likes basketball a "jock" or the child who loves to read a "geek," we label women who insist they be treated equals as "feminists". All of these "labels" have derogatory connotations, despite the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with them. What's more, there's usually a certain arrogant derision on the part of the party that does the labeling. Those who don't like or can't play sports turn "jock" into an insult. Those who don't enjoy or struggle with reading or studying render "geek" a mockery. In the same way, those who don't truly understand what it means to be a feminist sometimes unfairly depict feminism in a two-dimensional fashion.

Which, of course, is precisely what they accuse feminists of doing:

Ex: "They [feminists] stand by the theory that following traditional female roles of caring for the family, having and raising children, and keeping the household clean is a culturally and socially influenced trait."

First of all, by labeling all feminists as "they," it is implied that all feminists adhere to these beliefs, that we all think the same way, and that all these thoughts are negative.

You want talk about feminists depicting "traditional" roles as ridiculous? What does the aforementioned not-so-fruedian slip suggest about how you "traditionally" view us?

As for the allegation itself...

Well...duh.

But who says we're arguing that all of these traits are inherently negative? Perhaps we are merely suggesting that, like anything, "traditional roles" can be put on a pedestal and be unhealthily glorified. Just like any number of things, the roles of "wife" and "mother" can become idols in women's lives, tempting us to draw our identity from our relationships, status, and the things we do - instead of our identities in Christ.

When we focus on these desires to the point of neglecting everything else, when romance and relationships become an obsession, we lose our identity and our purpose. We abandon becoming the beautiful person God created us to be and, instead, try to validate our existence through our romantic status. We tie our hopes, dreams, and self-esteem into another human being - a mere man - instead of our maker.

As a recent survivor of an unhealthy, unbalanced, unequal relationship, I have learned all too well the cost of putting your entire focus and self-worth in another human being. Never again. Significance comes from being who you are: not from a relationship or lack thereof.

Ex: "They [feminists] stand by the theory that anyone who follows those roles does so, not because they WANT to, but because they were "raised to believe that way".They nullify an individual's ability to think for oneself, mitigating a woman's choice to follow that role as one of "brainwashing. Feminity becomes stupid and inferior....However, the "intelligent" women are the ones that "throw off the shackals of slavehood and become liberated", finding fulfillment in being powerful CEO's and VP's. [Feminists have] thrown away everything female about themselves.... their ovaries, their hair...all to be more like MEN."

I find this statement to be particularly offensive. I LIKE being a girl. In no way, shape, or form do I possess any desire to shake off my gender and become a man. I like high-heels, skirts, and pearl necklaces. I love getting dolled up to go out on the town. Flowers still make me giggle. I delight in waltzing into a room, girly as can be, and swiftly showing all the men in there that I'm just as capable as they are. Just because I insist on not being walked upon like a piece of shag carpet does not mean that I am seeking a sex change.

What's more, maybe I don't want to be confined in your box of "traditional femininity". After all, if we are both sinful, fallible human beings, what makes your interpretation of the gospel any more valid than mine? Since when has being ambitious or successful been equated with un-womanliness? That's like saying a husband who "cooks" for his wife is "unmanly". I, quite frankly, find that endearing.

The issue comes back to equality: not "traditional" roles.

Feminism, as defined by Wikipedia, is simply this: "the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men" ("Feminism"). We're not asking to be better than men. We're not asking to be men. We're simply asking to be treated with the same dignity and respect that men have historically recieved - the respect that all human beings are entitled to possess. Nothing more; nothing less.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

For true feminists, unlike "femi-nazis," the real issue at stake is social justice. Justice means each person is treated fairly - regardless of his or her gender. If the husband works out of the home and the wife is a homemaker, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's wonderful! He's meeting the external financial needs; she's meeting the internal domestic needs. If the husband works and the wife sits around and does nothing, however, a true feminist would say "There's a problem here!" We don't want to see men abused any more then we want to see women mistreated.

The problem arises when women are told that this domestic role is all that they are allowed fulfill, when women are treated like servants, like property, like play things - all in the name of adhering to tradition. Some of us want more than what tradition can offer. Some of us are messy. Some of us would rather be outside in a garden.

We are each fearfully and wonderfully made, but we were not all made the same.

I, most likely, will never be content to be a housewife. Not because I don't want to get married, not because I don't want children, but because it is not enough for me. I don't want to be defined by my gender, my romantic relationships, or reproductive abilities alone. No. I want to be defined by my actions, by the good I do in this world, and by the legacy I leave behind. If I define myself solely by my status as wife and mother, what happens when my husband dies or leaves me? What happens when I can't have children? Do I cease to exist? Do I cease to have purpose and meaning?

No. I live. I thrive. I press onward to acheive the goal that has been laid out for me.

Anything less is a denial of who God made me to be.

So I will proudly wear my "This is what a feminist looks like" shirt - along with my stilettos and pencil skirts.