Women

Message to Good Men Project: Stay Out of My Bra

For those who don’t want to be bothered reading and then coming back here, let me sum up: It’s an article at The Good Men Project (*shudder*) all about how awesome small boobs are. (The kind on women’s bodies, not the idiot kind.) At first, this sounds right on—a man who doesn’t think my body is only good if it meets some Hollywood standard? Hell, yeah! That is, until one takes a closer look. Then all the Creepy Stalker goodness comes out.

Exhibits A-E:

Maybe we’re the ones quietly taking you in from five tables away. Listening to your voice. Your perspective. Your sense of humor. The witty way you referenced an F. Scott Fitzgerald line in the middle of ordering your drink. And yes, don’t worry, we snuck a good, long look at your body.
Maybe there’s something fearless and yet vulnerable about your petite frame that draws us.
But there’s something about you A-girls that I just can’t shake.
Whatever it is, I, for one, am under your spell. I swoon when you walk into the room. I want your first dance, your next kiss, your every smile.
You have more admirers than you know.

So now small-breasted women everywhere can worry that some dude is following her every move at Starbucks while she orders her morning latte. Fabulous.

I get it. The author of this piece wasn’t really going for that angle (although he appears to have succeeded spectacularly). He was going for the idea that women shouldn’t feel ashamed of our bodies, right? Right? Call that one a fail. Instead of helping women feel good about our bodies, he’s just implied that a)big boobs = frat bait; b)want a PhD? Too bad your tits are too big, you ignorant slut; and c)you know those small knockers you’ve got there? Your smarts are just compensation for what Mama Nature forgot to dole out.

Check out what Mr. Small-Breasts-Fetish says about it:

We’re not the ones throwing themselves at you at the frat party. Or your friend’s wedding, countless drinks in.
Maybe we’re actually turned off by someone who’s used to transfixing men with her obvious, womanly attributes.
Some of us have learned from experience that small-breasted women often have larger minds. Or better moves on the dance floor. Or more optimistic attitudes when the chips are down. Because you’ve been overlooked by luck before.
This is for the lesser-endowed ladies of the world: the women who were dealt too lightly by Nature…

In (very reluctant) fairness, he does say that some of his “friends” who are well-endowed are smart and interesting. But that’s after he’s dug his hole, and right before he returns to Creepy Stalker mode. So I’m not sure that this off-hand comment can be taken seriously.

See, here’s the thing. The problem isn’t just about whether men like big breasts or small ones, or big butts or skinny ones, or whatever. It’s about that fact that this person doesn’t seem to understand much at all about women. We don’t need to be reassured by him that our bodies are acceptable. We don’t need a self-righteous man with a preference for A-cups to Change the World with his praise.

We women have changeable bodies. Puberty, pregnancy, menopause. Our shape may or may not remain the same over a lifetime. What we need is not for someone outside ourselves to deem us Worthy. We need to believe it ourselves. We need to embrace our curves, our sleek lines, our muscles, our fat. We need to love every inch of our own bodies and have confidence that this is exactly the body we were meant to live in. Real men, the men who love and know us, understand this. Real men embrace their wives even when pregnancy leaves us looking different than on our wedding day. Real men still tell us we light their fires even after we’re no longer capable of giving them babies. Real men, even if they’re attracted to us because of appearance at first, take the time to discover who we are.

Forget Hollywood, forget Good Men. Women, let’s reclaim our bodies and honor ourselves and each other.

Why I Don’t Need a Gay Bestie

LGBTQ+, Relationships, Women

Note to my wonderful gay friends and family: I am not ranting about you personally. I love you, and you have done nothing wrong. But media’s version of what our relationship should be is wrong, and that’s what I’m talking about here.

Note to women who have a gay best friend: If this works for you, that’s awesome. I’m not here to tell you your friendships are all wrong. You should have the kind of friendships that you value and enjoy.

About a year ago, I read a book on female friendships. To be blunt, it sucked. Nothing in it resembled any kind of friendship I’ve ever had. I don’t engage in “girl crushes” with shiny, new friends. If I spend time with you, it’s because I like you and want to know you better, not because you represent something I lack in my own life. I have no frienemies because I choose my friends carefully. If you act like an ass, you won’t be my friend very long. And I don’t have a gay friend who advises every aspect of my life, from relationships to fashion to personal health.

If I were to take books like that seriously, or if I were to watch too much television, I would get the impression that every woman is secretly in need of a gay dude to be her life coach. Don’t get me wrong, I love my gay friends. But I don’t have that kind of relationship with any of them. In fact, I don’t have that kind of relationship with any one person.

The Hollywood romanticized notion of the Gay Best Friend is terrible on several levels. First, this is not good for women. There is a secret message in there for us: He may be a swishy gay guy, but he’s still anatomically male. We all still need someone with copious amounts of free testosterone to tell us what to do. Sure, it elevates us from being pushed around by our husbands and boyfriends. But it never gives us real power over our own lives. We can’t tell what looks good on us, we need a man (who, ironically, isn’t all that interested in what we look like anyway) to inform us. We make poor relationship decisions because we just don’t understand men, so we need a guy who can tell us what we need to know without trying to get up our skirts himself.

Second, it’s bad for women’s relationships with each other. Apparently, if I want to know if my butt looks fat in those jeans, I need a gay guy along for the ride. You know what? I have two sisters, both of whom are happy to tell me exactly what those jeans do to my butt. I trust the women in my life. But in this gay bestie scenario, I’m not supposed to be able to do that.

Third, it’s bad for gay men. I have nothing against gay guys who like fashion and like giving advice. But I know more than an average number of gay men, and you will be shocked to discover that they are all very different from each other. (Amazing, isn’t it?) This version of gay men reduces them to fashion-conscious dispensers of wisdom for women, as though that is what they live for. Not to mention the fact that this takes friendships between women and gay men and turns it from mutual love and respect into the kind of relationship one might have with her handbag.

Finally, this is generally a bad concept for friendship. I am not the Big Name Star of my own action flick, with my friends taking the role of Robin to my Batman. Every person in my life has a consciousness of his or her own. They don’t live to play the supporting parts. Unfortunately, far too many films and television shows make it appear that this self-centered approach to relationships is the real, true way the world works (or should work). The end result is friendships wrecked over the me-first attitude that our gal-pals and our buddies are our personal satellites. (Not to mention that any friend who constantly told me my ass looked fat and my relationships were crap would very quickly find him- or herself no longer my friend.)

We need to foster healthier ideas about relationships between friends. I cherish my friends. Whatever I have with them, I wish I could bottle it and sell it. I have just about the best friends any woman could ask for. I never feel disadvantaged among them; I hope they feel the same.

How will you honor the women friends in your life today?

Finding Deborah

Women

Today’s Bible History Lesson: The story of Deborah, Judge and leader of Israel. You can read her story here. Read it and come back, so I don’t have to summarize.

A couple of years ago, my kids saw a video dramatization of this story. It was done like an ancient Israel press conference, with Deborah and Barak answering questions from the “reporters.” It was a bit dopey, but still a cute way to introduce the kids to the story. (Otherwise, the tale is a bit more graphic than I want my young children to see. Hello, tent peg to the head?) I was pleased that my kids were learning the story of a couple of strong, brave, intelligent women.

Until the punch line.

If you read the story, you will recall the part where Deborah tells Barak that she will go with him, but he won’t receive the glory. Instead, God will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman. (And . . . cue the tent peg.) Unfortunately, whoever made the video seems to have been unfamiliar with the actual Bible text. Brace yourselves, here comes the disturbing part.

In the video, Deborah tells Barak that he won’t get credit for the win if she goes along, so . . . she lets him go ahead without her. And he gets the military victory, of course. Forget Jael and her tent peg.

Yeah.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the people who made that video changed the story. I suppose I can understand if they didn’t want to rehash the whole head-stabbing thing, but to change the tone of the story so that the man gets the glory after all? Why?

I can practically hear some of you rolling your eyes, believing I’m looking for misogyny everywhere. But this isn’t just about misogyny. It’s about changing the text of the Bible to suit what we believe it says. This is not merely an interpretation, it’s a deliberate alteration used to support a conclusion.

That tends to be the problem with fundamentalist thinking. It backs you into a corner, and you have to find a way out. The belief that women are not, or cannot be, strong leaders who succeed in battle isn’t found in the story of Deborah. Her story, and that of Jael, are not compatible with the fundamentalist reading of the New Testament. When the producers made the video, they couldn’t reconcile their reading of the New Testament with the text of the Old Testament. So they changed the text, rather than changing their understanding.

As for me, I want my daughter to know that these brave women have gone before her—the real story, not the watered-down version she saw in the video. I want my son to know that there is no shame in submitting to the authority of a woman. (Barak didn’t seem to feel any, judging by the song he sang with Deborah.) Go, bless your daughters and raise them to be women of courage and conviction. And remind them not to forget their tent pegs.

The Authority of the Y Chromosome

Women

The other day, I was trying to explain the difference between someone having a negative opinion of you based on what you’re wearing versus something about your very nature as a human being. It’s one thing for someone to think you’re a thug because you wear certain articles of clothing; it’s entirely different for someone to believe you’re a thug because of the color of your skin.

The same holds true when it comes to being female. We’re not seen as a minority or being oppressed in any way, because we make up half the population. Isn’t oppression something done to keep small populations under the control of the majority? Far too many times in the last week, I’ve had to explain that having different standards for men and women is oppressive and inappropriate. It’s not based on something we’ve done wrong, it’s based on our very nature as people—our lack of a Y chromosome and some dangly bits.

I’m not even talking about gender roles. I’m talking about what men and women are considered capable of doing. There is no place this is more evident than in “traditional” churches. It never seems to matter whether or not a woman has intelligence, training, and insight. It never seems to matter whether or not she has prayed and asked the Holy Spirit to guide her. Women in those churches will always be told that if they have gifts of prophecy, teaching, or preaching, they should apply those to instructing other women. If she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to pastor a church, she may be told that she should marry a pastor or that she has heard incorrectly or that she should consider using her gifts differently. If we point out women who are boldly preaching to men and women alike, we may be told that they are “challenges” to our faith.

It doesn’t matter if those women are fantastically gifted speakers and leaders. In the nearly 25 years that I’ve been a Christian, I’ve been subjected to some pretty awful preaching by men who hold the title of pastor. I’ve also heard some wonderful and inspiring messages from women, both clergy and laity. In my opinion, there is no excuse for putting a man up front to give a lousy sermon if a church has twenty women who could do a much better job.

The real problem, though, is the legalism attached to the “no women in spiritual authority” thing. (And a side note, I think the term “spiritual authority” is meaningless. Every time I hear it, I feel my inner Inigo Montoya rising and I want to say, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”) When a church makes rules about the role of women, they need to be consistent. There shouldn’t be the kind of legalistic mentality that leads to searching for loopholes.

The result is that a woman can lead a Bible study if she has a male co-leader who is present while she teaches. So if her lessons are good enough under those circumstances, why not when her co-leader is not present? Women can teach young men (usually under 18 or under 21), but not older. I assure you, there is nothing magical that happens to a man at age 18 or 21. The only reason to have that rule is that “there has to be a line somewhere.” But Jewish boys become men at 13. Since both Jesus and Paul were Jews, shouldn’t we go by their rules? How about an 18- or 21-year old male who is mentally challenged? Do we refuse to allow women to deliver a message to high schoolers after December 1 (the cut-off for school entrance) on the grounds that one or more of the boys may have turned 18 before the end of the school year? Or do we let her preach on, and just kick the 18-year-old males out of the room?

That last one is the worst offender. Deciding when a boy becomes a man and then trying to base Scriptural analysis and doctrine on that is foolish. When I was in high school, I took a Communicants class at church. (This is sort of a confirmation class, where teens can learn about faith, salvation, and the specific doctrine of the church. At the end, membership in the church is possible.) My teacher was a woman, a friend’s mother. She is intelligent, trustworthy, and knowledgeable about both Scripture and church tradition (and life in general; I can’t exaggerate the respect I have for her). By the Age 18 Rule, she could not give Bible instruction to a mixed group of college freshmen.

On what planet does it make any sense at all that a godly, wise woman three times their age would be considered to have less spiritual maturity than a male college freshman?

This isn’t about what education or training a woman is lacking. This is about the fact that she is lacking a set of hormones and a penis. And although I hate to break it to the men (okay, not really), your penis is not magical, no matter how much you might want to think it is. Refusing to allow people to reach the potential God has for them because you interpret the Bible to mean “no penis, no preaching” isn’t good form. Being female isn’t a choice, something we can correct so that we’re in line with the Bible’s teaching. It’s a vital, inborn part of who we are as humans. It’s not even the kind of thing one can argue over, whether it’s a choice or a person is born that way.

What I’m asking for is that if a church really believes that women should not hold authority over men, then be consistent with that. Don’t hire women to do the job of a pastor, but refuse to acknowledge that fact by denying her the title of respect. Be sure that when you hire men to preach, they are actually good at what they are doing. Otherwise, you’re hiring the appendage not the pastor. If you don’t want women to teach men, then don’t let them. Have all instruction, including that of children, carried out by men, or segregate children into male and female groups.

You can’t have it both ways.

Scooby-dooby-don’t!

Parenting, Women

This morning, I picked my son up from school. The kids had a half day, so we had the whole afternoon planned together. On the ride home, I heard the kids talking the way they sometimes do. They were “in character,” taking on the roles as they engaged in pretend play. My daughter is the one who likes this sort of play, dragging her brother along for the ride. She has quite the range of characters she likes to play. We had an entire year in which everyone in the family had to endure, “Let’s play _____ [some movie, cartoon, or book]. Who do you want to be?” It was constant, to the point that I was worried about why my daughter never seemed to want to be herself. You know, the sort of weird thing moms fret about, but that are normal parts of childhood.

Anyway, whenever she’s in the mood for this sort of role-playing, and insists her brother play along, he resorts to his default character. To please his sister, he made up this character called “Jack Spy.” I don’t think Jack Spy does any actual spying; I think my son just needed something on the fly one time and that’s what popped into his head. Apparently, the kids have a whole world devoted to Jack Spy, though. His sister is “Sarah Spy” (yeah, my kids are really original sometimes). I think they have pets, and they have a whole “show” about their adventures (which usually, as I said, don’t include spying of any type; but whatever).

Getting back to the car ride (I do have a point somewhere in here), they had gotten into character. Sarah was playing Bowser Junior from Mario Kart, and Jack was Jack Spy. As I listened to them talking, something struck me: Sarah usually takes on the roles of male characters. She didn’t even want to be Sarah Spy today, she wanted Bowser Junior to join Jack Spy on his adventures. From the way she was talking, this is because Sarah Spy doesn’t appear in the adventures very often, as she is “just” Jack Spy’s sister (and therefore not very interesting). The real Sarah wanted a more active role.

Some of it is personality. Sarah’s the kind of kid who, given the choice, will be an animal rather than a human when engaged in pretend play. And let’s face it, most animal sidekicks are male. But at least part of the problem is just that—there aren’t many interesting female characters (leads, sidekicks, or pets). And by interesting, I don’t just mean “smart” or “resourceful.” I mean the kind of girls and women who have adventures just like their male counterparts.

I don’t think it’s bad to have female characters that are smart and resourceful. Hermione Granger and Velma from Scooby-Doo are two of my favorites (although I would argue that they get to have real adventures, rather than just being brainy). The problem is that there aren’t many like them, females who are adventuresome and brave as well as clever. As I pointed out above, it’s just as bad when you have a kid who likes animals. I can’t think of any female sidekick pets that get the kind of press the boys do.

I’m sure some well-meaning woman will have soothing words for me that it’s just pretend play; that I’m reading too much into it; that there are plenty of good female role models out there; or that it’s more important for her to have real people she can look up to. To a degree, that’s true. At the same time, though, there is something that troubles me about it. I’d like her fictional heroes to represent her demographic, at least some of the time.

It’s time we stopped believing the lie that it doesn’t matter whether a hero is male or female, therefore we can go with male because men are more universal. If it really doesn’t matter, then why not have girls and women equally represented? After all, we make up half the population! It would be nice if instead of believing the hero’s sister is uninteresting, she could create a sister character who is just as adventuresome as her big brother. But to do that, she needs to see it modeled.

So, fellow female writers, let’s make it happen. Let’s create female characters that our spunky daughters are glad to emulate. And let’s take Hermione out of the classroom and out from behind her male friends, and send her on a wild adventure of her own.

I need something good to read…hm…how about my wife’s email?

Women

I’m going to go on record, right here and now, saying that my husband does not read my email unless I ask him to do so. I mean, why would he? I don’t check his either.

Honestly, we’re pretty boring people. The emails I receive are only from a few sources. There are emails from church (newsletter articles, notes about the ministries with which I serve); family; my daughter’s Girl Scout leader; tracking information on things I order online at Christmastime; and spam (which GMail kindly removes for me). That’s it. If my husband were to peruse it, he would soon find himself nodding off, it’s so dull.

Of course, there is the little matter of getting me to play the part of the dutiful wife and keep my mouth shut about my opinions. But I guess my husband has learned by now to keep his place and let me have my say. He’s never concerned himself with preventing me from doing what I do best: Giving my opinion. I mean, he probably won’t find a lot of that in my email anyway, and he already reads my blog. So I guess he’s got his bases covered there.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m very much in favor of husbands and wives sharing things with each other, being honest with each other. I don’t bother to share most of what’s in my emails with my husband because it’s boring and irrelevant to him. But I’m not hiding anything in there. Everything he needs to know, he does. Keeping my email to myself isn’t a matter of secrets and lies. It’s a matter of respect. Just as I would never dream of opening up my husband’s email and just going through it, he wouldn’t do that to me.

I’m not saying there would never be occasion to check a spouse’s email. If I ever needed to, I do have my husband’s password, and he has mine. But doing so on a regular basis smacks of paranoia and control issues.

Recently, a fired Mars Hill pastor and his wife came forward with their story of spiritual abuse at the hands of the church leadership. I highly recommend reading the story as written by Jonna Petry, which can be found here. While nearly everything in there is heartbreaking and disturbing, I was particularly upset by this (emphasis mine):

Shortly after this meeting, in my praying for the church that God’s will would be done in the
upcoming changes, I sent a letter to the elders’ wives inviting them to join me in prayer, along
with Scriptures I had been meditating on. Mark, who reads Grace’s emails, was livid about it and
verbally lambasted the elders at their next meeting for not keeping their wives in line.

Wait…did she just say Mark Driscoll reads his wife’s emails?

Don’t get all uppity about whether or not a husband has a “right” to check up on his wife. No, actually, he doesn’t. He doesn’t have the right to act suspicious to the point of violating the respect spouses should have for each other. He certainly doesn’t have the right to violate the privacy of the people who email his wife. This is especially true when he uses the information to control his wife or attempts to use it to control the others in their circles. In fact, that’s abusive.

Demanding that a wife allow her husband free access to her emails isn’t a sign that they are open and honest in their relationship. It’s a sign that she fears him, or she would just change her password and refuse to tell him. I have to wonder what would happen to Grace if she suddenly denied her husband access. In what other ways would he attempt to control or hurt her?

The idea that we need to continually check to see whether the people we love are doing something naughty is not found in Scripture. There is nothing in there that covers the idea that every aspect of a person’s life belongs to his or her partner. While I understand that we want to be sure that our relationships are honest and that communication remains open, violating someone else’s privacy isn’t the way to accomplish that. It’s not a way to build friendships, either. If someone had a personal problem and wanted to email me about it, it would be incredibly violating for her if my husband—without her permission—read the email.

I suppose it could be argued that people in a church know what they’re getting into, that perhaps everyone knows that the pastors and elders all read their wives’ emails (and, apparently, use it to control them). I know that I would absolutely never email anyone in church leadership about anything under those circumstances. That kind of invasive behavior isn’t good for a church, either.

I’m going to celebrate the fact that my husband loves and trusts me enough that he doesn’t need to read my emails or access my Facebook and Twitter accounts to keep tabs on me. I’m also going to pray for women who aren’t so fortunate. I highly doubt that reading emails is the only form of abuse going on in many of those relationships. If that describes you, know that you are not alone and there are places you can go for help.

Message to Good Men Project: Stay Out of My Bra

Why I Don’t Need a Gay Bestie

Finding Deborah

The Authority of the Y Chromosome

Scooby-dooby-don’t!

I need something good to read…hm…how about my wife’s email?

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing