Women

Women are not the problem

Warning: This post contains subject matter which may be triggering for some people. Things I will mention include rape, sexual assault, harassment, abuse, molestation. Also, I use some strong language (read: swearing). Read at your own risk. If you choose to comment on this post, please show respect by providing a trigger warning for sensitive topics each time you include them. (Posts with potential triggers that don’t include a warning will be removed within 24 hours.) Thanks!

Last night, I participated in an animated discussion on Twitter regarding the 2005 book Sex Is Not the Problem: Lust Is by Joshua Harris. One of the people I follow is reading it for research and was live tweeting her reactions. I won’t take up space with all of the horrifying quotes she tweeted, but I will tell you which two I found the most disturbing:

When you dress and behave in a way that is designed …to arouse sexual desire in men, you’re committing pornography with your life.

and

Ask God to help you see how selfish and uncaring it is to want to use your body to encourage your brothers to lust.

Those two statements, right there, are exactly why we have a problem with boys and men who act as though they have the right to take whatever they want from girls and women.

You may not be able to see it. You almost surely won’t see it if you are a straight, white, cis-gender man. You probably won’t see it if you’re a woman who buys into purity culture and have never been victimized.

But the rest of us see it.

It’s especially bad for those of us who have been harmed by it. We’re the survivors. We’re the ones who have had to deal with years of shame because we believed that what we suffered was our own fault. We’re the ones who…

were raped by our innocent, safe boyfriends with whom we never even shared a kiss.
dressed in baggy clothes and pretended we didn’t have breasts because we were sure that they wouldn’t have raped us if we’d been more modest.
were licked, leered at, and taunted by our classmates because using sexuality was a way to make us feel small.
had boys write “slut” and “whore” and “bitch” on our homework, then had friends tell us we should be flattered because “he likes you!”
had our fathers demand chastity with our boyfriends while themselves finger-fucking us in bed at night.
got felt up by boys, without our permission, and then were ashamed because we kind of liked it.*
had boys ask to touch our bodies, and said yes because we were scared, and never told anyone because we hadn’t said no.
thought something was wrong with us when we felt sexually aroused, because that wasn’t supposed to happen to girls who weren’t married.
were virgins when we got married and endured years of painful intercourse instead of real lovemaking because the first time was so painful and scary, and no one ever taught us that it didn’t have to be—even if we’d never had sex before.
continue to live with shame over our non-marital intimacy because we’ve been labeled as “sluts.”

And through every single moment, we heard the message loud and clear that whatever we were doing was the cause of our misery.**

So you can sit there in your self-righteous bubble and tell us how we should dress or act so that we don’t attract the “lust” of boys and men. Or you can choose to use your own feelings of guilt and shame to do more damage to other people. Either way, though, you need to keep it to yourself. You need to stop using your words to continue the cycle of blame and guilt that has been inflicted on too many women.

If I sound angry, it’s because I am. I’m angry that we spend our energy demanding that women take responsibility for both their own and men’s sexuality, instead of doing what we should be doing: going after the actions of the people who victimize others directly, without blaming those they’ve harmed. I’m angry that anyone gave Joshua Harris a platform for his douchey attitude toward women. I’m angry that the message that what women wear causes uncontrollable urges in men is still being spouted in churches everywhere. I’m angry that because this message is so prevalent in Christian culture, my children will someday hear it, even if it isn’t explicitly preached to them at church (the same message appears in music, books, devotions, and educational material for Christian teens).

I have two messages. First, for men like Joshua Harris and other men who call themselves Christians: Shut up. Just shut up. We women don’t need you to tell us how we should dress or act. And we don’t need men to “protect” or “rescue” us from the fairly uncommon random stranger that attacks women. No, we need you men to keep your damn pants zipped and stop being the ones who rape and molest us, and then trying to blame us for being immodest.

Second, for those of who have been abused and assaulted, stop believing the lie that it’s your fault. Stop believing that there is something wrong with you. There isn’t. And you don’t need Jesus to heal you from whatever sin caused your pain, because it wasn’t your fault at all. You don’t need to recover from your own fall, but from the shame placed on you by other people. You have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

This has to stop somewhere, and I’m determined that, at least in my own household, it stops with me.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*It’s not uncommon for children who are molested or people who are sexually assaulted to feel some degree of arousal. Those parts of our bodies are designed to respond to stimuli. The shame comes both from the confusion that it’s simultaneously unpleasant and yet stimulating, coupled with the belief that anything sexual is bad until marriage.

**Yes, everything on that list has happened to someone (or multiple someones) that I personally know. Yes, some of them happened to me. No, I’m not going to tell you which ones.

Cover Up

Morality, Women

modesty — Modesty, © 2005 Nancy Breslin
http://www.nancybreslin.com/index.html

Last week, an acquaintance shared this article about a woman who was confronted by another woman from her church regarding how she was dressed. The link to the article was accompanied by this acquaintance charging women to “have your husband inspect your outfit before you leave the house!”

I shared that with my own husband. He looked at me, his eyebrow raised in puzzlement, before he burst out laughing. He told me that he couldn’t imagine me doing that, nor would he want me to. He and I have an ongoing agreement that we are both adults and do not need to be monitored like small children who don’t know any better, so I wasn’t really surprised by his reaction.

The thing that stood out to me were the particular criticisms of the writer’s clothing. The woman who confronted her wanted to know,

Do you think wearing your shoulders out is okay for other men to see while they are trying to worship?

and

Don’t you think your high heels with your toes out are a bit much?

She was not only fixated on the specifics of the clothing she found objectionable, she was placing it in the context of how it would affect the men in the church.

This is a problem.

I agree that there are standards of dress and that modesty is a good thing. Where I disagree is why. In fact, it’s why I dislike modesty culture just as much as I dislike the “immodest” styles that are available. It’s not the outfit, it’s the motivation—on both sides of the Great Purity Divide.

Ironically, I dislike the purity movement for exactly the same reasons I don’t like porn and provocative clothing. In both cases, the catering is done for the benefit of men. And it’s why I don’t give a rat’s butt about a woman wearing a cami with her bra straps showing, or a bathing suit that doesn’t make her look like she’s pretending she doesn’t have boobs, or a pair of sweat pants that says “sweet” on the rear, any more than I care about baggy dresses and “mom jeans.”

When clothing is chosen with men in mind, it doesn’t matter whether it’s chosen to entice or to “respect.” In both cases, the motivation is someone outside the woman choosing the outfit. That’s not healthy for anyone. Here’s why, and these apply in both situations:

It reinforces the imbalance of power. Here’s the idea: Men have power, women don’t, therefore everything we do as women must be done keeping men in mind, including how we dress. What a terrible way to live.
It implies that men are only ever interested in one way of interacting with women. It causes a relationship between men and women that is entirely based on sexuality, rather than mutual respect. On the one hand, skimpy clothes are intended to be sexually arousing for men, which objectifies women. On the other, “modest” dress assumes that men are looking at women as mere sex objects and that their bodies must be hidden to prevent this.
It sets up an impossible standard for women. Either she must conform to a certain kind of physical beauty or she must conform to a certain kind of moral purity, but the lines are never clear enough and the rules are never specific enough. How thin is the ideal body? How big do breasts need to be in order to be perfect? How many inches above the knee is too short? What constitutes too tight?
It makes women responsible for the actions of men. Either we’re supposed to show off our assets so those clueless men finally take notice, or we’re supposed to cover them up so those oversexed men won’t be distracted. It’s classic blame-the-victim. When a woman seen as attractive is single, people wonder what her flaws are that she couldn’t land a man. When a woman is assaulted, she’s often asked what she did to provoke the attack.
It assumes that male-female pair bonding is the ultimate goal for every woman. Female clothing is supposed to be chosen to please our future husbands. This ignores the fact that there are lesbians and women who don’t want to get married.

Ultimately, what’s more important than the dimensions of the clothing is that a woman chooses it with no one in mind except herself. A woman who is empowered does not choose her clothes based on what anyone else thinks she should wear. It is my belief that if more women dressed in ways that made them feel good about themselves, we would no longer need to continue to argue about what constitutes appropriate clothing and where the modesty line is.

Notable News: Week of May 19-25, 2012

Cool Stuff, LGBTQ+, News, Women

Edited to add: A friend helpfully pointed out to me that I had missed a huge one this week. That’s what I get for swearing off Twitter for 4 days so I can read a book. Oh, well. This post now reflects that information.

This week’s big topic: Pastors who threaten people and the people who listen.

Pastor Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church recommends electric fence for gays

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs]

Really? Really?! I don’t care how you feel about the sinfulness/non-sinfulness of homosexuality. It ought to make you mad that this person claims to represent God and the Church. Pastor Worley, this isn’t the way to help people find Jesus.

Providence Road Baptist Church member defends Pastor Worley

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXDKnL4xGE]

Well. Isn’t that special.

This woman seems unaware that this happened:

Meanwhile, Hustler proved that liberals are jackasses, too. New York Daily News columnist S. E. Cupp was victimized by having her image Photoshopped into lewd pictures. I don’t care what her politics are, and I don’t care that it was a “joke.” It wasn’t funny and NO WOMAN ANYWHERE DESERVES TO BE TREATED THAT WAY. Yes, you did just read me shouting.

In other news, because I don’t want to leave this on such a downer, here are a couple of great posts from the fabulous Rachel Held Evans. Whenever I want to read something thought-provoking and uplifting, I read her blog. I cannot wait to get my hands on her upcoming book. Meanwhile, enjoy a couple of cool posts from this week:

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell.” RHE eloquently puts into words the feelings so many of us have. I love this post.

Ask a Seventh-day Adventist I honestly don’t know much about Adventism. In my entire life, I’ve known exactly two people active in the faith and one family that left the faith. The ones who left called it a “cult.” I enjoyed reading more about it, although I don’t know if I feel more confused or less.

Have a great week, everyone!

______________________________________________________________

If you see anything interesting this week around the web, drop me a note via the Contact Me link on the sidebar. With your permission, I’ll credit you with the find.

Notable News, Week of May 12-18

Cool Stuff, Links, Music, News, Parenting, Women

TIME Magazine, celebrity feminism, and Donna Summer. It’s all in here!

1. TIME Magazine enrages us all

Even though the controversial issue of TIME Magazine came out last week, it’s still the center of the blogosphere. Tons of women have weighed in on it, from a variety of perspectives. What’s been awesome about the whole thing is that TIME intended to fan the flames of the Mommy Wars, but we moms (and women who aren’t moms, too) proved ourselves above such foolishness. We came together spectacularly to support each other in our parenting styles. Yeah, women!

Here are what I consider the best of the best in response to the TIME article:

Rachel Held Evans helps us laugh at ourselves and recognize that we are, indeed, enough just as we are.
Avital Norman Nathman gives us her take over at The Mamafesto. In her first post, “Are YOU ‘Mom Enough’?”, she explains the artificial battle line TIME has drawn. In the second, “Distraction”, she reminds us that we shouldn’t let TIME get away with distracting us from the very real parenting issues of post-natal leave, sick time, and health care for families.
The Radical Housewife encourages us to ponder the ways in which patriarchy has determined that none of us will ever be “mom enough.”
Over on Soulseeds, Meg Lawton tells us about her breastfeeding journey and why TIME’s sexualized image put her off.

2. The limitations of celebrity feminists

Check out this great article on the problems with women like Tina Fey who would limit our feminism “for our own good.” Long, but worth the read. It’s another take on the madonna/whore complex.

3. Donna Summer dies

She was only 63.

A Human Problem, Not a Woman Problem

Relationships, Women

Found this:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbjT8UKxC_8&w=560&h=315]

When I watched it, my first thought was, “I’m not sure what’s wrong with this.”

I’ve experienced every one of the problems he mentions (sadly, sometimes on the giving end). Gossip disguised as “prayer requests” is one of my pet peeves. And I don’t doubt the truth of our thoughts permeating our actions toward others, or that kids imitate the adults around them.

That’s when it struck me.

What’s wrong with this is that Driscoll has reduced it to a problem for wives and mothers. Backstabbing through “prayer,” badmouthing a spouse to friends, and reaming out a spouse in front of the kids is not a women’s problem. It’s a human problem.

Driscoll delivered a message we all need to hear (and did it with surprisingly more reserve than he usually uses). But he limited the exhortation to married women with children, as though this is a female problem. He effectively ignores unmarried women. He misses the fact that prayer gossip is as much a problem in friendship (both male and female) as in couplehood. He seems unaware that kids imitate fathers, too, and a man who verbally abuses his wife in front of them risks raising children who do the same.

Maybe I’m not angry enough about this message. It doesn’t give me the same creepy feeling that most of Driscoll’s crap does. It certainly doesn’t alarm me as much as the way he’s collected groupies across the country. But I do wish that anyone tuning in to hear what he has to say would listen to what’s underlying his sermons.

What’s in a (last) name?

Women

Our family was playing a game called “Truth Be Told.” The point of the game is for one person to ask a question (pulled out of the card box) and write down his or her answer. Everyone else writes down what they think the reader would say. The reader gives all the answers, and everyone else has to guess the real one.

Dear Husband drew a card that said, “Truth be told, the worst thing about being a girl is…” (Yeah, I know. Just by itself that question is horrible. Don’t get me started.) DH, our son, and I all wrote down things related to feminine beauty. DH wrote “uncomfortable clothes,” I wrote “high heels,” and our son wrote “long hair.” It did strike me as funny that all three of us suggested things that I personally find bothersome. Anyway, our daughter had a different take.

She wrote, “Having to change your name.”

We asked her what she meant. She explained that it was exactly what I suspected, women are expected to give up their maiden names when they marry. Apparently, this is not something our daughter is keen on. I suppose that this doesn’t really surprise me, although I didn’t know that my first grader was considering things so deeply.

Apparently, my daughter is more of a feminist at age six than I am at 36.

It’s taken me a long time to stop viewing feminism as the enemy of Christian faith, at least in some sense. Obviously, I’ve always believed that women should have equal pay for equal work, and I have never had any problem with women serving as elders, leaders, and pastors in the church. I certainly think (and teach my daughter to think) that girls are every bit as good as boys and should have no limits on what they are allowed to do. But my one hold-out has always been the issue of maiden name vs. married name.

A long time ago, I accepted the idea that a woman might keep her maiden name for professional reasons or because she was divorced. But I otherwise couldn’t fathom wanting to keep one’s maiden name just because one wanted to. When my daughter made her statements, I had to examine why I was so averse to the idea. I uncovered two basic reasons.

First, some (not all) of the women I’ve known who kept their maiden names were rather self-righteous about it. They made arguments about how taking her husband’s last name is a sign that he “owns” her, and it’s a barbaric tradition. Which, when you think about it, doesn’t make a lot of sense. After all, whose last name is a woman’s maiden name? Probably her father’s. Does that signal, then, that her father still “owns” her? Not only that, but I fail to see how it’s any indication of the kind of relationship I have with my husband. Considering that, I came to my second realization.

I finally understood why I had wanted to take my husband’s last name—and, consequently, understood why my daughter (and perhaps other women, too) might want to keep their maiden names.

When I got married, I couldn’t wait to shed my last name. It had been, to me, and endless source of grief since childhood. I had spent years having peers taunt me by altering my name into rather rude nicknames. It was embarrassing to have an unusual-ish last name. I might have gotten over it, but once I reached college, our family came apart at the seams. My mother took back her own family name. I, too, wanted all traces of that name wiped clean. The name didn’t bring honor, it brought shame.

So I became part of my husband’s family. I considered it a privilege to share his name, to be part of a family so full of love and faith. I am still honored to be called by that name. I suspect that this is what my daughter feels, too. She sees her last name as part of her, a part that signals to the world that she is a part of us and we are a part of her. I hope that the legacy we leave strengthens her resolve to bear that last name with dignity.

Because in the end, that is what a family name should be. Something which reveals to the rest of the world a little piece of who we are and who we love. I always thought that perhaps I would go back to my maiden name if I ever publish anything. I think now that I won’t, for a host of reasons. Should I choose to write under another name, I will use my mother’s family name. It’s a name that holds deep meaning for me, a name that symbolizes something I aspire to be.

As I came to understand why I did choose to take my husband’s name, I also understood why someone else would not. And, like all things, a woman should not have to defend her choice of last names, no matter what she decides to do. I suspect the reason I felt defensive, and perhaps the reason some women sound self-righteous, is that we’re all so used to defending ourselves—even among each other. We should not have to do that.

My daughter may change her mind when she gets married. Or she may not. It doesn’t really matter. Knowing her, she won’t settle for any man other than one who will respect her choice, no matter what she decides.

Women are not the problem

Cover Up

Notable News: Week of May 19-25, 2012

Notable News, Week of May 12-18

A Human Problem, Not a Woman Problem

What’s in a (last) name?

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content