Sexuality and Gender

Being a woman of confidence

This fantastic post, the words that choke me, sparked some interesting discussion among my online friends. My favorite part:

Maybe the other half of the story is to learn to be equally vulnerable in identifying, owning, and sharing my strengths and my gifts to encourage and empower others to do the same. What a difference we could make in the world if we all embraced our light and let it shine forth unimpeded!

This is a difficult thing, isn’t it? The one question we didn’t reach an answer to is why. Why do so many women feel fearful–or even just strange–about owning our strengths? Why are so many blogs, especially by and for women, devoted to admitting our weaknesses and nurturing the broken places in our lives?

I don’t believe this is entirely the fault of Christian culture. It’s true that in many churches, we’re supposed to love being wives and mothers so much that those are the things we celebrate being good at. It’s also true that in many churches women’s roles are limited, often to things similar to being wives and mothers–food and childcare duties. That’s certainly one place where it can feel unsafe to speak about our strengths.

Another part of the problem is the “disease model” of salvation–that we are all horribly broken from birth and in desperate need to be rescued from hell. For a good number of people (not just women), such a belief has done an incredible amount of damage to their self-worth. If a person thinks she has nothing good inside her to offer, she isn’t going to speak about her strengths.

That’s not the whole picture, though. It’s a systemic issue. I’ve written before on my experience in school of reading very little literature written by women. In all my time playing with my orchestra (more than 10 years total), I think we’ve played exactly one composition written by a woman. When I brought that up with some friends, I got two equally bad reactions:

1. If you wanted to read things by women, why didn’t you just do it on your own?

and

2. Who cares who wrote it as long as it’s good?

Both of those are ways of silencing women. If women have written books that are just as good as those written by men, then why aren’t we reading them in the classroom? The idea that it doesn’t matter is ridiculous. It matters because it sends the message that women may be able to write, but they don’t write the kinds of things everyone wants to read. That may be an unintentional message, but it’s the one being sent whether intended or not.

How can we learn that we are good at these things if we’re never acknowledged as such? How can women know that we are good and capable and that our work is desirable if we look around us and the vast majority of people being celebrated in history, art, literature, science, and music are men?

When people (okay, mostly men; sorry) dismiss that concern as irrelevant or untrue, it just serves to silence us further. When we’re told that it doesn’t matter or that we’re exaggerating or that their experiences were different, it makes me angry. None of those things matter when reality is that so many women continue to feel like we are fractured.

We need to do something about that. I’m going to do something about that. I want to know what we’re good at. Everything we’re good at. If you are a woman, what do you love to do that feels like a success? How did you discover it? Is it your profession? A hobby? Something with your family?

Maybe you’re a guy (hey, plenty of guys read this blog). I’m willing to bet you know some pretty amazing women. What makes them amazing?

Feel free to leave comments here. You can also contact me. I’m going to spend as long as it takes collecting stories about women and what we’re good at. If you want your story here, let me know. I’ll keep it anonymous if you prefer. Let’s get the word out that we are more than our broken places. Let’s do as Kenetha suggests and “[embrace] our light and let it shine forth unimpeded!”

More on NALT and being an ally

LGBTQ+, Relationships, Social Justice

Yesterday, I wrote about why I’m not making a NALT video. I want to expand on that a little. There are some valid concerns about the project, but from what I’ve seen, a lot of those concerns border on what the project might do rather than what it is doing and on assumptions rather than experiences.

One big issue is whether or not the people making the videos believe that’s all they need to do to be good allies. First of all, it’s a pretty big assumption to think that those people are not already doing other things. All we know of most of them is whatever they happen to say in a couple of minutes. We don’t know whether they think they’ve done their part. Obviously that could be true, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of people who make the videos are sitting somewhere feeling satisfied that they’ve completed their assignment and can now move on. It also assumes that all of those people are straight and cisgender (hint: they’re not).

I think one of the things that frustrates me is the belief that it’s “easier” to be an ally online. That has not been my experience at all. I find it far easier to be an ally in real life; it doesn’t take a whole lot of effort. It mostly consists of being a good friend–which isn’t usually about someone else’s sexuality anyway. Sure, there are times when I need to take action. Sometimes I vote for legislation that extends the same rights I enjoy. Sometimes I have to ask people not to say stupid, hateful, or hurtful things. More often, though, it’s about getting a cup of coffee together or chatting while our kids play or having our sons baptized on the same day or attending a wedding celebration. It’s about sharing together the things that are important to us, including our identities. It’s not complicated.

When I first started to blog, I stayed anonymous for a long time. I didn’t do it out of fear. I’m hardly a person who cares that some church official might decide that I shouldn’t be involved in ministry. I did it to protect the people whom I was serving. I wanted to stay web-silent so that I could be a safe person for youth and their families. I know people who have been threatened and bullied for supporting their gay children, and I believed they and their children needed someone safe to talk to. If I had been public, I would have been removed from ministry and therefore have been less available for people who needed me.*

When the time was right, I began using my real name. It was mildly risky on my part, but that was at a point when I knew that I wasn’t putting anyone else at risk. When people make these videos, they may be doing the same thing. It may be a first step in being public after a time of flying under the radar. They may be risking much more than I was in making a statement.

When I named myself, I discovered something: It’s a lot harder to be a good ally online. It’s tricky to navigate the wide range of needs among people I don’t know anywhere but the Internet. I’ve learned a lot, including that sometimes people’s needs are completely opposite. The NALT campaign is a good example–some people feel hopeful and encouraged while others feel angry and hurt.** I’m an incredibly sensitive person, and I tend to absorb other people’s feelings. That’s a good thing, except when people are expressing such vastly different emotions. It puts me in a place where I feel like I have to choose between people I care about and respect. It makes me want to quit the Internet and run back to the safety of doing this only offline.

Here’s the thing, though. I think that’s as it should be. It is hard. If it were easy, everyone would do it. Everyone would know all the right words and there would never be a question. Everyone would be able to be a good ally offline and on the Internet. We would never have to work at listening, caring, speaking, or writing. Taking on the challenge–whether one finds it harder online or off–is important, necessary work if we ever expect social change.

Not everyone can do it on the Internet. Maybe passing on blogging, videos, and tweets is the best option for some people. Those who resent having to walk such a fine line are probably better off concentrating on other things. Those who are so tenderhearted that they are slowly sucked dry by conflicting views might need to back off in order to have the emotional reserve to care for people in their own lives.

For the rest of us, though, it’s worth staying in. It’s okay that we’re hearing different answers to the same question, because no two people are identical in their experiences. There is no Hypothetical Idealized Ally. There’s no perfect way of writing or talking about these things. I think my first rule of being an ally needs to be, “Don’t tell other allies how to do it correctly.” I don’t have everything right. All I can do is point back at those to whom I’m an ally and say, “Ask them.” Even then, it’s going to depend on the individual. My default is to individually ask, “What do you prefer?” and act accordingly when communicating with that person.

Even though I find it difficult at times, I’m not going to be silent on the Internet. I may get pushed from different directions at times, and that has to be okay with me. I have to go with it because it’s not about me. When I make decisions about what I write or whether I’ll make a video, I have to go with what feels right in my heart because sometimes there’s no way to do both of two opposing actions. I can’t both make a video and not make one. What feels right to me at this time is not to make one, even though I know there are people who may be disappointed. If people care so little about me as a human being that they reduce me to being bad or good depending on whether I agree with them or I’ve done exactly as they wanted me to, then those aren’t people I want to spend much time with.

Where have you found it harder to be an ally? Online or offline? Where have you found it harder to find allies? What advice would you give to those who want to be allies online?

______________________________

*I know I’m being vague. I simply can’t be more specific in order to protect people I care about.

**Or some other combination–say, hurt but hopeful. All those feelings are valid. The difficulty is in how to proceed when pulled in opposite directions.

Why I don’t need a video to prove I’m not “like that”

LGBTQ+, Relationships, Religion

At this point, I’m not sure who’s reading this and also has some knowledge of the NALT (“not all like that”) project. I also don’t know who’s reading this and also might be either upset by or supportive of the project. Either way, I want to explain why I’m okay with the project, but I won’t be making a video.

Some years ago, when I was first trying to figure out how to love and serve LGBTQ people, I could’ve used something like NALT. I was in a situation in which I didn’t know any other Christians who believed same-sex relationships were not sinful (though I knew a few who thought the “condition” of being gay might be okay so long as one didn’t act on that). I knew exactly two gay Christians. And trans* people? Hell, they didn’t even exist in that world. Just to be clear, I wasn’t necessarily looking for other straight allies–just anyone who had a different view from the conservative one. When I went seeking, all I found were organizations that wanted my money. It took about two years of actively pursuing it to find others, and then it was only because I decided to open a Twitter account and follow people who looked like they might be progressive. Believe me, I understand the desire to find like-minded people.

One of the reasons I kept up the effort is that I have a lot of LGBTQ friends, family, and acquaintances in my offline life, and I had done a lot of damage with my religious posturing. I’m lucky some of these people decided they still like me. I suppose I thought I needed to make things up to them somehow. I had been so trained in “love the sinner, hate the sin” that I wasn’t sure anymore how to just love people. Of course, I do know better these days, and I no longer need an outside source to tell me how to care for my friends.

I also have a lot of friends, family, and acquaintances who are not LGBTQ. By now, the majority of those people should be aware of where I stand on things, whether it be in regard to Christianity and LGBTQ people or feminism or the doctrines of total depravity and hell. I don’t feel the need to explain or defend myself. The people close to me don’t need me to say anything else; they already know I’m “not all like that.” In fact, some of them have used those exact words to describe me. I had to laugh once when my cousin said she was telling a friend about my husband and me and she said we were Christians but whispered, “But they’re not like that“–and apparently, the other person knew exactly what she meant.

All of that is why I see no need to make a video to announce to the world that I’m “not like that.”

That’s why I’m choosing not to participate in the NALT project. My offline loved ones don’t need it; I’m not a big enough online voice to be noticed by megachurch pastors; and it won’t do anything to help my online acquaintances. On the other hand, I’m not going to write a blog post condemning the project. I know far too many people who have found it to be meaningful and powerful. I know straight allies who have found each other, I know LGBTQ Christians who have, some for the first time, heard the message that their spiritual and sexual identities are not mutually exclusive. I know people–cis-het and otherwise–who want to use this as a way to stand up to bullying anti-gay pastors. I can’t slam the project on the grounds that some people don’t care for the terms used or don’t see the project as helping them or their loved ones directly, even though I do understand where those feelings come from.

One of the criticisms I’ve heard about the project is that it’s taking some kind of “easy” way out of being a “real” ally (and yeah, that’s mostly something I’ve heard cis-straight people say). I’ve seen online arguments about it and a good deal of the sort of rage usually reserved for Mark Driscoll or Hugo Schwyzer. So tomorrow, I’m going to talk about being an ally, walking that fine line, and what it really means for something to be easy or hard in that context.

What are your thoughts on NALT? Will you make (or have you already made) a video? What might be some better alternatives for people who don’t want to make one?

6 reasons not to waste your money…

Christianese, Family, Women

…because your daughter is just going to stay home and have babies anyway.

*Little Housewife*, Johan Georg Meyer (via Wikimedia)

Last week, several friends were kind enough to bring to my attention this awful piece on why parents shouldn’t send their daughters to college. Go ahead and read it if you’d like some rage with your coffee this morning. In case you prefer not to, here’s the list in brief:

Your poor daughter will end up with a–gasp–educated man. No, wait, she’s just going to end up being the hard-working, intelligent wife with a lazy loser for a husband (kinda like all those sitcoms).

She’s going to have the opportunity to have sex. Maybe a lot of sex. Probably with lazy losers. Once that happens, she’s not going to notice that her guy is bad for her because sex hormones.

She’s going to end up with a career, dammit. She probably won’t want to play house anymore. Maybe she won’t even want babies!

Since she’s just going to be a good wife and mommy, she won’t enjoy having the career that would have paid for her college education. Also, it’s a total waste of money to go to college and then stay home, thus forcing your husband to pay for your loans with his money.

There is obviously only one way to be a feminist, and that is by going to college and having a career (which is dictated by your college education, of course) and not being a wife and mommy. It’s a slippery slope, thinking she has to prove she’s a feminist by doing all this. We can’t have that.

In order to pay for college, parents might plan ahead and not have all the babies God wants them to. They might use birth control! No worries that sending sons to college might make parents sin by preventing pregnancy, though.

Those young women are going to regret it someday when they are stuck in a cube somewhere wishing they could just stay home and luxuriate, eating bonbons and watching daytime television like the rest of us stay-at-home moms.

They won’t be able to go to seminary (at least, not a Catholic one) if they have debt. Fine, that one might be real, especially since no woman called to vocational ministry ever knows that before she stupidly and blindly goes off to college to get a degree in chemical engineering first.

I don’t know about you, but I’m glad that I’m informed now. It’s only about ten more years til I have to think about sending my own daughter off to college, and I sure as heck don’t want her to end up with a degree that keeps her from her duties as wife and mom. Who cares if she’s ambitious and has talked for the better part of two years about wanting a career working with animals? She should just squash those dreams right now before they get out of hand.

Meanwhile, I guess I’d better figure out a way to pay my husband back for using “his” money (that he worked super hard for!) to pay off my loans from undergraduate and graduate school. After all, I’m just playing 1950s-television-style housewife here and not contributing financially. On second though, never mind. I’m just gonna go watch some television to alleviate my regrets.

FYI (if you’re a mom of teenage boys)

Christianese, Feminism, Parenting, Sexuality and Gender

Dear moms,

I have some information that might interest you. Last night, as I sometimes do, I sat on my couch and looked at social media on my phone.

I’ve been on vacation, so naturally there are quite a few blog posts and news articles to wade through. Wow – the Internet sure has been busy with the slut-shaming this summer! Some of my friends brought this to my attention, because as Christians and/or feminists, we notice shit like that.

I noticed other things, too. For one, it appears that I’ve been on the wrong path when it comes to raising my own son.

I get it – you’ve seen ~~all those shameless hussies putting their pictures up on Facebook~~ how our culture exploits women’s bodies, right? I can’t help thinking that maybe I’ve failed by trying to raise a son who respects women regardless of how they’re dressed. Clearly, I should have been protecting his eyes. I should remedy that.

So, here’s the bit that I think is important for you to realize. If you are the parent of a teenage son, you should definitely make sure he never, ever sees a half-dressed girl. Half-dressed boys are okay, though, because naturally, none of your sons are gay or bisexual. Posting half-naked pictures of your own sons flexing on the beach is also totally fine, since no one ever equates strength and virility. We all know that unless we see a penis, it’s not sexual anyway. Besides, it’s not at all exploitative to parade their bodies on the Internet for your own gain; everyone knows that’s much better than making one’s own choices about what to post.

Please understand this also: you are not responsible for making sure your sons know that regardless of what a girl is wearing, she deserves respect. All you need to do is assure they don’t see those pictures. After all, if they don’t see them, then you can relax in the knowledge that your sons do not know what girls’ bodies look like or that they won’t satisfy their curiosity by looking at the Internet at a friend’s house.

Not to mention that those “sexy” selfies your sons’ friends are posting ~~don’t reflect who they are~~ clearly demonstrate that they are temptresses who want to cause your sons to fall into sin. You need to be sure to remind them often so that you can ~~keep your sons from acting like animals~~ protect your sons.

And now – thank God – you have a good excuse to select who your sons are friends with. You can also have awkward family dinners during which you remind them that ~~masturbation is a sin~~ ~~teenage girls are sluts~~ they should probably not see a female-bodied person in her nightgown until they are married.

I know you’re concerned that these girls’ parents would be disappointed if they knew their daughters were causing your poor, defenseless sons to ~~get hard~~ think impure things when looking at them on the Internet. Obviously, you know that once a boy sees a girl in a state of undress, he turns from a respectable, nice kid into a raging, hormonal beast. You don’t want your sons to only think of girls in this “sexual” way, do you?

Of course not.

You’re also probably aware that girls don’t fantasize about boys’ bodies, so you’re free to put as many objectifying pictures of them up on your blog as you like. No worries–you won’t be causing any teenage girls to lust. That’s because girls don’t really have any sexual feelings unless they are a)married or b)they weren’t properly guarding their hearts. Naturally, they never masturbate or look at naked men on the Internet. And they’re not ever lesbians, either.

Good thing you’ve resolved not to give any of these teen temptresses a second chance to corrupt your innocent little men. I’m sure you’ve also installed nanny software and have a firewall so good no one could ever hack it. You’ve probably made sure that your sons’ friends have these things too. Don’t forget that awkward conversation you had with all their dads to find out if any of them had a stray magazine or several that you needed to confiscate before you allowed your sons into their homes.

I know that sounds harsh and old-school, but that’s just the way needs to be if you want to raise your sons right. Blocking, banning, and shaming is so much more effective than merely having open conversations about how your sons treat women. Remind yourself that you are raising men, while their female counterparts are mere girls. That way, you can convince yourself that your sons are mature enough to make adult decisions while these girls are not–and apparently don’t have any parents to help them learn and grow the way you’re helping your sons. Their parents will probably be grateful that you implied their daughters are tramps anyway.

Meanwhile, you should have in mind the kind of women you want your sons to marry. Your gag reflex probably prevents you from realizing that they may be gay, which is why you need to imagine them with women. It’s not creepy and weird at all that you are making these plans for them when they’re only halfway through high school. It’s never too early to control your children’s future adulthood. Besides, there’s no chance whatsoever that your sons will go behind your backs and date or have sex or whatever. And did I mention that these “men of integrity” are totally not ever, ever masturbating? Oh, I did? Well, I said it again.

Moms, it’s not too late! If you think you’ve made a mistake in raising your sons (we all do – don’t fret – I’ve made some doozies), RUN to your boys’ social media pages and block every single one of their girl friends. There are pictures of them that make it easy for your sons to imagine them naked, including that lovely senior portrait. After all, girls don’t even need to be in a state of partial undress to tempt boys to lust after them–all it takes is their mere existence.

Will you trust me? Your boys are crying out for you to teach them that girls are the cause of all their adolescent hormone surges as well as any other behaviors they may exhibit. Deep down, they are uncontrollable cavemen who cannot possibly learn how to respect and love women unless you protect them from the grasps of those alluring young things. (And also, they are NOT gay, so you probably don’t need to worry about protecting them from other boys.)

You are raising MEN.

Teach them guilt, sexism, and blame.

I’m glad could have this talk. Maybe we’ll talk again sometime about how we can raise our girls into women who feel ashamed of their bodies.

Mrs. Mitchell

It’s not about the sex

Feminism, Racism, Sexuality and Gender

Courtesy of http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/miley-cyrus-sexual-exploitation-vma-2228134 *(this was the least offensive photo I could find)*

While some people are busy fretting over how they can’t let their kids watch the VMAs because of performances like Miley Cyrus’, I’m shaking my head and wondering how it’s gotten boiled down to arguments about whether her parents did their job or whether she’s just acting foolish because of her age/fame. There are problems with her performance (which I didn’t watch live; I saw the video this morning). None of them have to do with what she wore, whether or not she’s trying to be “sexy,” or whether or not she has gone from wholesome to trashy.

I didn’t find her performance sexy (and what was wrong with her tongue? Does she have a condition?), but I’d be happy to chalk that up to personal preference. That is, if not for two glaring problems:

It was racist.
It wasn’t empowering for female sexuality.

I’m not the best person to explain what was racist about it. You should just go read this (and the several articles linked therein). It explains perfectly what was wrong with Miley’s performance from an intersectional feminism perspective. I was glad to read that; I’m not always sure that I’m on the right track, so I was happy to have confirmation that my initial reaction wasn’t off-base. There is obviously more wrong than this, but my first question after watching was, “Why are all the back-up dancers black?” It didn’t seem right, so I dug a little deeper. I’m glad I did.

I can speak a little better to the second point. Other women have performed in less clothing than Miley wore and have had equally sexual dance moves. Why is hers somehow worse? The short answer is that by itself, it’s not. If it were just Miley up there (preferably minus the objectification of black women), it would have been less of an issue. In one sense, Miley is trying to find out who she is apart from her family and her childhood. When other child stars do the same, they are often shamed for their mistakes because they can’t screw up in private. But there’s a special kind of venom reserved for “wholesome” girls who grow up into women with sexuality. For some reason, the finger-wagging always seems to crop up around things like the VMAs, with parents lamenting, “What about the chiiiiiildren????”

Young men don’t seem to have this problem. One of my friends was kind enough to point out that Daniel Radcliffe didn’t get the same treatment when he was naked. On stage. With a horse. I mean, I guess parents probably figured that wasn’t something to take the kids to see, but still–he got more flak when people thought he was gay than for his performance in Equus. Right there, that says volumes about people’s priorities.

The real problem with Miley’s performance is adding Robin Thicke into the mix. A few years ago, I had a grad school professor who mentioned in class that he’d done some research on pornography (yes, that’s actual research, people). He evaluated pictures in magazines based on several criteria–pose, facial expression, etc. He discovered that in many photos of women, they were pouting and passive, and there was often a fully clothed man in the photograph. This was in sharp contrast with photos of men, who were mostly smiling, active, and alone. It was the last one that surprised me (and bothered me) most.

As it turns out, I wasn’t wrong about that. The presence of a fully-clothed man feeds into the idea that women are bodies that exist solely for men’s pleasure. Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke played that out on national television. The excuses were strange, too–that this is his “thing” and he’s never been a Disney star are hardly important when he’s perpetuating a degrading view of women with someone half his age who’s barely an adult. His sexual freedom and aggression are celebrated; she’s shamed for not living up to her status as a role model (which, by the way, she is not obligated to do).

The two problems (racism and misogyny) that I mentioned are linked by the fact that Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke have intentionally joined them. This is their view of what it means to be sexual, and it hinges on exploitation and the blatant appropriation of a subset of black culture–along with a host of horrible assumptions about black women. Combine Miley’s own admission that she wants to try on “black culture” with a man singing about “blurred” consent while a woman mimes sexually pleasuring him and you should get a good idea why this is so disgusting.

The whole thing made me feel sick, and many of the reactions have made me feel sicker still. It was gross, and it was wrong, and we need to ask ourselves why we’re more concerned with the fact of Miley’s attempts at being sexy than how she’s trying to achieve it or why it’s so wrong. It’s not about teaching our daughters about what’s “appropriate” when it comes to clothing or dance moves. It’s not about another former child star “gone wrong.” It’s about how we’ve failed as a society to stop exploiting people for profit and how we’ve failed as a society to teach our children that growing up means knowing the difference between empowering people and continuing to subjugate them, even when the line seems thin.

Being a woman of confidence

Why I don’t need a video to prove I’m not “like that”

6 reasons not to waste your money…

It’s not about the sex

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content