This is my last college research paper ever and I still don't know how to use MLA and still stay up for 24 hours straight to finish it... psh responsibility. But I was excited to get a chance to find some rational to why I've never felt Christianity was empowering. It's always been an internal struggle, so I decided to write a feminist critique on Christianity....
Concern
for the compatibility of faith and feminism is rooted in my experience and
observation. Growing up attending
youth groups and Sunday school, I always felt out of place. As I got older and began to question
and analyze the stories I have been taught, my skepticism started to make
sense. I didn’t feel like I
belonged in the church, I didn’t see my place in Christianity, I saw other
strong women struggle as well because Christianity wasn’t made for me. What I see now is that Christianity was
created within a patriarchy, a system of oppression for women, so it is
systematically and inherently oppressive towards women and beneficial towards
men. So it came in to question,
can I be a Christian and a feminist?
Oppression
Frye
describes oppression in her article, Oppression,
through the element of “press”, to reduce, flatten, mold, caught between forces
that restrains mobility. This
restriction creates their subordination to a dominant group. Frye would say that it isn’t one
particular act that is oppressive, but several acts that accumulate, comparing
it to bars in a birdcage. The
dangers of cages, is that when you are inside one, you may not even know it, it
may be the only world you know and you may even find comfort in its protection. Frye also explains that they most
effective element in oppression is to convince the oppressed that their
subordination is natural and inevitable (Frye).
Oppression
is most successful when members of the oppressed group reinforce the
restrictions upon their own group.
For women to degrade other women for working outside the home or label
them whores or sluts based on personal choices, they are policing other women
and reinforcing the patriarchy.
This happens from oppressed peoples internalizing and naturalizing the disadvantages
of their oppression. Like Frye
said, “It must seem natural that
individuals of one category are dominated by individuals of another, and that
groups, one dominates the other” (Frye, 34). For example, a woman getting paid less than men is
rationalized because women tend to take jobs that are lower salaried. Although this outcome seems natural,
since women are inclined to take them, their tendencies are socialized from an
oppressive culture that values a woman’s work less than man. This oppression is the “birdcage” women
live in, under submission of a dominant group, a cage in which some bars are
formed from things like capitalism, sexism and as I will discuss, Christianity.
Christianity
Christianity is the largest
religious group in the world according to a demographic study by
pewforum.org. Considering that the
teachings of the Bible are the most prevalent moral teachings, these lessons
have a profound impact on the way our world functions. Although Christianity has many
sub-categories and denominations, they are all founded on the teachings in the
same Bible. The disagreement
between the categories comes from the way the Bible is interpreted, as well and
the translation of the Bible. As a
way to mesh modern movements with biblical teaching, factors such as historical
context and time period can be drawn out.
Whether taken literally or as a parable, the main message is the same,
God sent His Son to die on a cross for the forgiveness of your sins. A feminist
critique of some of the teachings in the Bible can help rationalize how
Christianity can be oppressive for women.
There is something to be said about
a male-gendered God and having Him be worshipped that would translate into
human life, modeling the teaching of their religion. Carol P.
Christ in her discussion on Why Women
Need The Goddess said, “Religious symbol systems focused around exclusively
male images of divinity create the impression that female power can never be
fully legitimate or wholly beneficial”(Christ). What is male is to be worshipped, what is female is not. Simone Beauvoir would say that a
patriarchal religion limits transcendence to men and confines women to
immanence or objectification (Young). Men can rise up and women can worship their status, but never
rise to their level. At the very
least, this can lead a person to question the effects of a patriarchal religion
on women.
In The Beginning
Women
introduced evil into the world from the very beginning. The parable of Adam and Eve, (Genesis
2:18-25) God created Woman as a helper of Man. After examining the animals God created, he did not see an
animal fit for Adam, and created Eve from Adam’s rib. Eve is not a standalone character; she does not exist
outside of Adam. This is true of the majority of women in the Bible; they do
not exist outside of man, which is appropriate for their assigned submissive
role in relationship with men. The
Bible is not a story of women uniting to save, heal or teach, but of men
guiding and creating the women.
If the Bible were to be analyzed
through the Bechdal test, a formula to identify gender bias in modern day
movies, it would fail. Its simple
standards require two named female characters speak to each other about something
other than a man according to bechdeltest.com. It is used to identify gender bias in media, but can be a
helpful tool to identify how often women are excluded, including the
Bible. Only two of the 66 books in
the Bible are named after women, Ruth and Ester, exemplifying the value of
women. When women are not included
in the conversation, their needs are unlikely to be identified. If God is assumed as gender-neutral,
despite being referred to as “He”, the results slightly change, but the
majority of the books in the Bible remaining male-dominated.
When a male dominated group decides
the world for women to live in, their solutions tend to benefit men, not
women. For example, the recent
controversy of an all male panel discussing issues on funding of birth control,
something they have no direct experience with, is a clear example of women
being excluded. Instead of the
intended conversation with concern for women’s health, it was a panel concerned
with freedom of religion and restriction on women (Thistlethwaite). What looked like a discussion to help women was actually a
discussion on how to maintain control of women based on men’s moral standards.
Linda Alcoff discussed the problem
of speaking for others; not only is the social location “epistemically salient,
but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous” and can often
reinforce oppression. She says
that it is important for the oppressed to work on behalf of the oppressed,
because the practice of speaking for others is enrooted in “a desire of mastery”
of knowledge and praise (Alcoff). Men’s
desire to morally guide women in purity and faith is tainted by the desire of
dominance and therefore cannot be relied upon.
Evil Woman
Genesis
3 continues on the story of Adam and Eve and how Eve causes the downfall of
man. Eve tempts her husband Adam
with the fruit of knowledge and they ate it as God commanded them not to. In consequence to this, woman is cursed
with the pain of childbearing as well as, “Your desire shall be for your
husband and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16).” Placing the woman under the power of man, by God’s will. This is an example of naturalizing
female subordination, which as we discussed earlier was a key element Frye
pointed out in maintaining oppression.
In
Genesis, pregnancy is described as a curse and punishment upon women for their
sins. It is not discussed as a miracle or powerful position.
The main biological distinction between men and woman is the female’s
ability to birth children, a distinction that is biblically associated as a
negative consequence. Gynocentric
feminism defines oppression as the “denial and devaluation of specifically
feminine virtues by an overly instrumentalized and authoritarian masculinist
culture”(Young). The Bible is
directly condoning the devaluation of specifically female traits, the
ability to give birth. The
liberation of women would require traits like this to be praised. Women are seen as frail in pregnancy,
not the strong and life-sustaining entity they are.
The
story of Eve tempting Adam and causing his fall supports a whole woman-blaming
culture. This translates into victim
blaming, framing women as temptresses and causing men to “fall in to sin” and
perpetuating rape-culture. This
defense is often used to attempt to clear rapists of blame by placing it on
their victim; the victim’s short skirt is to a rapist as the apple is to Adam,
an excuse to blame women. In
reality, a rapist is at fault for raping and Adam is at fault for eating the
apple, particularly in a patriarchy because they are allotted the most agency. Mackinnon discusses in her article, “
Sex and Violence” that in terms of prosecution of a rapist, it comes down to
his words against hers, her perspective against his. The harm is that the law is written in his perspective and
woman have been depicted as temptresses and liars, so who why would we believe
them? Sex is defined by male pleasure and ejaculation. In that framework, men and their
intentions would also define rape, which robs women of their experience with
assault (Mackinnon).
Submission
It
is continually quoted in scripture that a woman’s role in the family is to be
submissive to her husband.
Although modern Christians claim this to be mutual submission, the Bible
never commands the husband to submit to his wife. Ephesians 5:22 says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the
husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,
his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as
the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to
their husbands.” This scripture is
direction for how to be a Christian woman, submit to your husband in
everything. This verse does
require man to submit to God, creating a hierarchy; woman can only reach God
through man but man can attain it on his own.
Practicing
Christian women don’t frequently resist the command of submission because it is
easier to agree with the patriarchy than live with the consequences of
resisting it. This would be an
example of naturalizing and internalizing female oppression. As mentioned earlier, Frye says
oppression is most successful when the oppressed feels their oppression is
natural or inevitable. In choosing submission, women are desiring and eroticizing
male dominance (MacKinnon, 1989). Women
have been socialized to be attracted to dominance so feel their attraction to
submission is natural and inevitable.
Qualities that have been attributed
to the “biological” components of femininity are socially constructed to
support women’s oppression. They
are socialized to be “naturally” inclined to the role of caretaker, homemaker,
babymaker and peacemaker. “Women
value care because men have valued us according to the care we give them, and
we could probably use some” (MacKinnon).
The desire is not innate, but commanded, socially reinforced, rewarded
and taught. It is taught in Titus
2:5, “…and so train the young women to
love their husbands and children, 5 to be
self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to
their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” Women become what they believe to be
valued and what Christianity taught them is valued.
Purity
Jessica
Valenti describes the culture and obsession Americans have with virginity,
which is supported by the predominant Christian faith, in her book The Purity Myth. The book focuses on how valuing and promoting virginity ultimately
equates it to a woman’s worth in the world. Attempting to desexualize women and focusing on abstinence
and virginity, actually focuses on their sex-life, oversexualized them and
places their value in their virginity rather than sexualization as defined by
society.
This
virginity that is so worshipped in women is ambiguous. What counts as “sex”? What constitutes
a “virgin”? We currently have no
functioning medical definition for “virgin”(Valenti, 20). The sign of a broken
hymen on a wedding night has traditionally been the marker of marrying a
virgin, even though “it can be rupture by nonsexual experience, such as
athletics” (Chozick). This
undefined virtue that is the moral standard of women doesn’t technically exist,
but is socially constructed as a way to control women’s sexuality.
Hebrew 13:4 says, “Let
marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for
God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” The only appropriate time for a woman
to engage in sexual acts is once she is married to a man, again giving men power
over woman. “Purity” is the
quality most focused on in teaching young girls their place in
Christianity. “Virginity is pretty
much all about women. Even the
dictionary definitions of “virgin” cite an “unmarried girl or woman” or a “religious
woman, esp. a saint.” No such definition
exists for men or boys” (Valenti, 21).
From Purity Balls, to Virginity Vouchers and abstinence-only education, the
pressure is placed on women to maintain their virtue through their virginity, a
pressure not applied to men.
This expectation of virginity is
detrimental to women. Not only is
their moral value questioned on an ambiguous standard, but fetishizes virginity
creating an even more harmful situation for young girls. With virginity being so closely tied
with youth, valorizing innocence positions adult women at the opposite spectrum
of “bad”. This creates a desire by
men and women of “perpetual girlhood” leaving girls vulnerable to those men who
desire youth and can use the patriarchal power bestowed upon them to take
advantage of it (Valenti pg 72).
It is also true that girls who make a virginity pledge are more likely
to engage in more high risk sexual activities of anal or oral sex, to maintain
this said virtue (Valenti, 218). Conclusively, the patriarchal pressure to maintain virginity puts women in danger physically and emotionally.
Modern Day
Christianity’s War On Women
There
is a difference in what Christianity is intended to look like and what it
actually looks like in our modern world.
The Republican Party has a platform supporting the return to traditional
families, enforcing gender roles, and a dominant Christian religion. The Republican Party is also notorious
for legislating and supporting the limit of freedoms for women.
The “Concerned Women for America”,
a Christian based organization, wrote an open letter to Congress urging to
resist the feminist agenda and degradation of families by passing the Violence
Against Women Act. The VAWA
provides women with resources to escape dangerous situations and leave abusive
husbands, disrupting the traditional family, threatening patriarchy and
liberating women. Often the bible
verses for submission of women are used in defense in domestic violence.
The terror ensues in issues of
contraception. Rush Limbaugh went
on record calling Sandra Fluke, an advocate for insurance coverage of birth
control. If this wasn’t absurd
enough, Christian Conservatives such as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Mitt
Romney did not contest Limbaugh’s accusations and Rick Santorum went as far as
demonizing birth control as well (Talbot).
In 2011, there were 80 new
restrictions on access to abortion passed in state legislature (Talbot). Supported by representatives like Rick
Santorum, who did not stop his crusade at slut-shaming, but also thanking God
for rape. Indiana Senate candidate
Richard Mourdock repeated Santorum’s claim that rape is by God’s will in
October 2010, “I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And even when
life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something God intended
to happen” (Foster). Christian Conservatives continue to ostracize women from God, implying God intended for their
sufferings.
Although extreme depictions of
Christians like mentioned are often rejected by other Christians, the fact of
the matter is that this is what is being heard about God and women. Even if this image does not represent
the majority of Christians, Christians are still devoted to their religion in
spite of knowing what their religious leaders say about women. Christianity is used a defense of
having the right to oppress women, whether or not that it the intention, that
is the reality.
When would
Christianity be feminist?
If
we argue that Christianity does not make a proper and equal place for women,
what would a feminist version of Christianity look like? A fundamental
complaint of male-dominated Christianity would be depicted in a male gendered
God that women are commanded to worship.
Carol Christ would argue that women need a female symbol “[to affirm]
female power, the female will and women’s bonds and heritage” (Christ). Although the Catholic religion includes
Mother Mary in their rituals and worship, she is still merely a vessel to the
Father God. As the creator of the
Earth, it almost makes more sense for God to be female. Women have the power to create life, as
God has the power to create life. In
relation to Gynocentric feminism, the ability to give birth and create life
would be worshipped and valued as male qualities of dominance and power are
worshipped.
Relations
between women would be plentiful and celebrated. Christianity has praised Father-Son relations and even
Mother-Son relations, but not the relationships of mother and daughter (Christ). Women are not encouraged to gather with
each other and support one another, but to seek male support. Mother-daughter relationships within a
patriarchal religion are harmed when the mother is forced to teach her daughter
the subordinate position of the woman (Christ). Women would be profits, teachers, and leaders. They would gather and converse and their contributions would be celebrated.
There lays some responsibility in
women to identify and work against their own social construction. Women would also have to reconstruct
the eroticism of male dominance and their personal expression of heterosexuality
(bell hooks). Women can longer be
attracted to men who actively benefit from the patriarchy and embrace the
macho-man role; it only reinforces and rewards hyper-masculinity.
Your Choice
Based
on the research and readings of several scholarly feminist theorists, I think
they would agree that Christianity is inherently oppressive towards women. The question of ‘Can I be a Christian
and a feminist?’ remains unanswered.
In my personal feminist philosophy, I cannot tell a woman what she can
and cannot believe. If she chooses
to recognize the obstacles I have addressed and the social construction of her
choices, then denying her agency would be the opposite of empowering women,
which feminism aims to do. She is
free to decide for herself what is an acceptable and true philosophy.
My
idea of a Christian feminist would be one to recognize the oppression of women
within Christianity and work to solve those injustices. They would need to do things like point
out the discrimination of not allowing female pastors in a Lutheran church and break
that gender based bias. A
Christian feminist would not be a bystander and allow the women of her religion
to suffer. I do not believe a
Christian feminist would promote the idea of submission, buy in to the purity
myth, or support legislation that limits women’s choices and freedoms.
I
do not find a happy marriage of Christianity and feminism. In general I believe it is difficult to
put faith in to two, possibly opposing theologies and fully believe them
both. In the end, you choose what
brings you comfort, for some that is tradition and for some that is
progress. In feminism I found the
freedom Christianity always promised me: the knowledge of my own social
construction, practicing the unwavering voice of women, seeking solutions to injustice
and ability to decide for myself.
Works Cited
