Oil is to water as feminist is to church.
Or so many people assume, especially in the South.
That, however, is not true - at least in my case - because of JESUS.
Yes, churches may have a problem or at least a discomfort with feminists but, I don't think Jesus would have. Jesus was different. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Jesus even identified as a feminist.
In a society where "a woman's social position was on the same level as that of children and slaves... [where] a woman's fortune was entirely tied to that of her husband [where] Boys went to school - girls didn't - which only perpetuated a system that limited women to hearth and home" (p 178), Jesus was different. Back in Biblical times, Jesus approached women, spoke with them, taught them, traveled with them, loved and respected them.
"When women called [Jesus] 'Savior,' they may have been speaking of the temporal as well as the spiritual world" (p 175).
"Of course, each woman would have an individual response to Jesus, but judging from what we know of their surroundings, many women certainly had a positive one. Scattered throughout the Gospels are stories similar to that of the jug-bearing Samaritan woman [the woman at the well, John 4:4-42], where the female object of Jesus's attention is at first incredulous, then surprised, then excited to be addressed as an equal by such a compassionate and obviously learned man. Invariably, the stories end with the woman returning to her place of origin to share the message with her counterparts - as with the healing of Jarius's daughter in Matthew 9:18-26, when 'the report of this spread throughout the district.' In that healing as in so many others involving women, Jesus intentionally highlighted their plight" (p 174).
Jesus was different.
"Besides the obvious benefits of physical healing, how much of the good news that the women seemed so anxious to share centered on their acceptance as disciples on a par with Jesus's male followers?... Maybe Jesus's women are, instead, reacting positively to a spiritual leader who is talking to them face-to-face and giving them access to knowledge that up to then they had not possessed" (p 175).
Jesus was different.
"Here was a man who was preaching and teaching and living a life of equality in a world sharply defined by gender roles. Here was a man who insisted on conversation with people whom society had rendered invisible - the women, the sick, the poor. How much more powerful was his message when he spoke to a poor, sick woman?" (p 176).
Jesus was very different.
"But Mosaic law [as in, the law of Moses... i.e. the 10 Commandments and such] contained some fairly restrictive rules in regard to women, in particular in regard to their menstruation. If the original law was devoted more to cleanliness and health - as were dietary laws - than to the cultural restriction of women, there is some thought that this law was reinforced by bodies of writing such the Mishnah, the first recording of the Oral Torah, in part to quell the growing equality fostered by early Christianity [my emphasis added]. In other words, the older law was in place in no small part to help ensure the physical safety of the Jews. As early Christianity and its message of oneness between the genders gained a toehold and then a foothold in ancient Mediterranean society, subsequent Jewish writings came down harder on restricting the movement and lives of females, which was hardly the laws' original intent" (p 178-79).
Hopefully you have caught on by now but, I shall say it again: Jesus was different. He did not get hung up on those older, tedious laws. He also did not repress women with their lineage - to Eve or otherwise.
"Never once is it recorded that Jesus reminded a woman - as Jewish law did - that she was the daughter of Eve, nor did he hint that women were responsible for any sin other than their own. It simply was not an issue for him, and that must have been a freeing thing for women of that time to hear" (p181).
The wonderful thing is that it STILL is a freeing thing for women of THIS time to hear.
Jesus IS different.
Yes, some churches may cherry pick certain verses to maintain society's gender roles but, clearly, Jesus did not see a need for that separation: "There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" - Galatians 3:28
Nonetheless, "writer after writer uses the Bible as the key tool against women's emancipation. With no thought to context, certain members of today's churches repeat the (misinterpreted) canard that women are to keep silent in the assembly, and that women are not to usurp authority over a man. Those same elect point to commonly held historical interpretations of the sacred text that wrongly insist there were no female apostles or early church leaders [um, hello, not only Mary Magdalene, Mary, Martha, but also Phoebe, Nympha, etc.] The role of women has been deleted or greatly discounted in subsequent retellings of the biblical stories... and far too much trust placed in the hands of unseen and unknown authors from long ago [likely influenced by that gender-role-requiring society]. The same rigorous scrutiny one would bring to, say, a new insurance policy is not practiced in regard to the Bible.
"Only by looking at the data as a whole can we come to understand Jesus and his honest and historical approach to gender. And then perhaps we, too, can respond as Martha did, with a resounding and matter-of-fact confession that Jesus is Christ, and his message applies equally to all of us" (p 183).
Thank God that Jesus was and IS different from society in how he treats women.
"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who has come into the world."
- Martha, John 11:27
NOTE:
Excerpts in this blog were taken from Chapter 10: Water Jugs in the book Dating Jesus: a story of Fundamentalism, Feminism, and the American Girl by Susan Campbell. The author, pushed away from Christianity by a rigorous and extreme Fundamentalist upbringing, is no longer a regular church attendee, but she is still "dating Jesus." This was a childhood notion she had that has stuck with her well into adulthood and the inspiration for her book. She clearly knows her stuff and was full of facts and references as well as humor if you'd like to read the book.
Also, the somewhat odd title of her chapter (Water Jugs) is a reference to women: "Throughout history, says feminist theologian Elisabeth Moltman-Wendel, water jugs have been a symbol associated with women. Women of significance in the Bible are often portrayed either holding a water jug or container or in close proximity to one. Abraham straps a water container onto Hagar's shoulder before he sends her wandering with her son in Genesis 21:14. Rebekah lets Abraham's servant drink from her jar in Genesis 24, and opens up a whole can of worms with Isaac. You get the idea. You see a woman, and a water container is most likely somewhere nearby" (p 170-71).
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Perks of Having a Penis: You get to keep your name
Upon returning to school after Christmas break, I discovered several of my friends had become engaged. It got me thinking "Will I take my husband's name?"
As a child, I always planned to - cause I never knew anything different.
In high school, of course I did (!) - because that is what you did: doodle your name with the last name of every crush you had. In high school, I not only doodled the name but planned the wedding to my high school sweetheart.
Oh yea, I failed to mention, he became engaged over break as well; weird. Now, I can rest assured I will never take his last name.
But will I take the name of the guy I do end up marrying?
Why does anyone take a husband's last name?
I recently read an article by Lynn Harris called "Mrs. Feminist." According to Harris, 90% of women take their husband's name, though this was lower in the 1980s after the second wave of the feminist movement.
So why do women take a husband's name? Not because they are conservative, Patriarchal-obeying, oblivious idiots. I can assure you.
Some reasons listed in the article included: their husband's last name simply sounded better than theirs, they wanted to, it would be easier for the kids, it was the norm, it promoted more of a family feeling.
Similarly, women who chose to keept their names were not all doing it as a political act. Some simply liked theirs better or feared an identity crisis or were known publicly by their maiden name.
Just for clarification, if you think about it, your maiden name is really a man's name anyways. If by not taking your husband's name you think it will spare you the title of a man's possession or it will prevent the loss of your personal feminine identity, I hate to break it to you but your maiden name technically represents you as belonging to your father.
BUT, this was not always the case.
Up until the middle ages when women began to lose their rights to own property, gentry had trumped gender as Harris points out. A.K.A. if your mom had more money or fame or property than your dad, the maternal line would be the family name and it was given to the children. But, soon the paternal line began to dominate regardless, once the courts created the idea of "coverture" (a male and female become one entity in the eyes of the law - that entity is male and he has all rights of the property, children, and wife).
The first women believed to have bucked that system was Lucy Stone in 1879 when she tried to keep her own name. According to Harris, when she went before the courts claiming that there was no law requiring her to take her husband's name, they drafted one.
Harris also points out that until the 1970s, US laws required women to take their husband's name in order to vote or get a driver's license!?!
But, not all women - myself included - view taking your husband's name as a bad thing. It is not necessarily losing your identity and becoming a "Mr. Him" as Lynn calls it, but instead it can be positive: "for some women now, it's an assumption, rather than a loss, of power -- shared power. 'Instead of feeling like I 'belong' to my husband now that I have his last name, I feel like we are on equal footing,' says Amy Owings, 34, a executive assistant in Overland Park, Kan. 'We are both Owings, so now I claim him as much as he claims me.'"
But, basically, I believe it boils down to a choice. Harris shares this in her article: "And the Lucy Stone League, an organization dedicated to fostering equality in United States naming practices, has a point when it says: 'Until naming practices are equal, women will not be considered equal to men in the U.S.'"
Is this true?
Would your future husband ever consider taking your name?
Are you considering not taking his?
Will you after reading this?
As a child, I always planned to - cause I never knew anything different.
In high school, of course I did (!) - because that is what you did: doodle your name with the last name of every crush you had. In high school, I not only doodled the name but planned the wedding to my high school sweetheart.
Oh yea, I failed to mention, he became engaged over break as well; weird. Now, I can rest assured I will never take his last name.
But will I take the name of the guy I do end up marrying?
Why does anyone take a husband's last name?
I recently read an article by Lynn Harris called "Mrs. Feminist." According to Harris, 90% of women take their husband's name, though this was lower in the 1980s after the second wave of the feminist movement.
So why do women take a husband's name? Not because they are conservative, Patriarchal-obeying, oblivious idiots. I can assure you.
Some reasons listed in the article included: their husband's last name simply sounded better than theirs, they wanted to, it would be easier for the kids, it was the norm, it promoted more of a family feeling.
Similarly, women who chose to keept their names were not all doing it as a political act. Some simply liked theirs better or feared an identity crisis or were known publicly by their maiden name.
Just for clarification, if you think about it, your maiden name is really a man's name anyways. If by not taking your husband's name you think it will spare you the title of a man's possession or it will prevent the loss of your personal feminine identity, I hate to break it to you but your maiden name technically represents you as belonging to your father.
BUT, this was not always the case.
Up until the middle ages when women began to lose their rights to own property, gentry had trumped gender as Harris points out. A.K.A. if your mom had more money or fame or property than your dad, the maternal line would be the family name and it was given to the children. But, soon the paternal line began to dominate regardless, once the courts created the idea of "coverture" (a male and female become one entity in the eyes of the law - that entity is male and he has all rights of the property, children, and wife).
The first women believed to have bucked that system was Lucy Stone in 1879 when she tried to keep her own name. According to Harris, when she went before the courts claiming that there was no law requiring her to take her husband's name, they drafted one.
Harris also points out that until the 1970s, US laws required women to take their husband's name in order to vote or get a driver's license!?!
But, not all women - myself included - view taking your husband's name as a bad thing. It is not necessarily losing your identity and becoming a "Mr. Him" as Lynn calls it, but instead it can be positive: "for some women now, it's an assumption, rather than a loss, of power -- shared power. 'Instead of feeling like I 'belong' to my husband now that I have his last name, I feel like we are on equal footing,' says Amy Owings, 34, a executive assistant in Overland Park, Kan. 'We are both Owings, so now I claim him as much as he claims me.'"
But, basically, I believe it boils down to a choice. Harris shares this in her article: "And the Lucy Stone League, an organization dedicated to fostering equality in United States naming practices, has a point when it says: 'Until naming practices are equal, women will not be considered equal to men in the U.S.'"
Is this true?
Would your future husband ever consider taking your name?
Are you considering not taking his?
Will you after reading this?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Mona Lisa Smile and Advertisements
This past weekend, I saw Mona Lisa Smile which was a wonderful movie about a Feminist art history professor at Wellesley in 1953-54. She deals with the school’s and her student’s traditional, conservative views on women, marriage, birth control, affairs, etc. The movie was great and I highly recommend it.
One scene in particular was my favorite: pay close attention from 4:10 to 9:30. As a Communication – Media Studies major, I have an interest in advertising. In the movie, the art history professor, Katherine Watson (played by Julia Roberts) addresses advertisements as art. A student objects and she ignores, stating that years from now, people will see those ads representing the “portrait” of women in that day. At the end of the movie, during the list of credits and cast, a slection of 1950s media and advertisements gives a good idea as to what that portrait of an ideal woman was; pay close attention from 2:10 to 4:50
So here we are today, over a half century later, and what do we see. Looking back in those ads of the smiling housewife – how far have we really advanced? Women are still seen in the home, cleaning/cooking, in need of beauty tools (girdles, makeup, hair products, etc.) and sexualized.
How many times do we see this with men? Fathers taking care of their children? Men making the meal for dinner? Dad’s doing the laundry? Guys in need of nail polish, makeup, etc.? Men sexualized? Sure that may be happening a bit more today but still, it is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of ads portraying women that way in the majority of today’s media.
Here is a then and now comparison of some ads from the 50s and today:
In the home:
Cleaning/Cooking:
Beauty:
Sexualized:
How far have we really progressed in the last fifty years? In another half-century, will we have progressed any more? What will they say of us, our portrait of the ideal woman in advertisements?
One scene in particular was my favorite: pay close attention from 4:10 to 9:30. As a Communication – Media Studies major, I have an interest in advertising. In the movie, the art history professor, Katherine Watson (played by Julia Roberts) addresses advertisements as art. A student objects and she ignores, stating that years from now, people will see those ads representing the “portrait” of women in that day. At the end of the movie, during the list of credits and cast, a slection of 1950s media and advertisements gives a good idea as to what that portrait of an ideal woman was; pay close attention from 2:10 to 4:50
So here we are today, over a half century later, and what do we see. Looking back in those ads of the smiling housewife – how far have we really advanced? Women are still seen in the home, cleaning/cooking, in need of beauty tools (girdles, makeup, hair products, etc.) and sexualized.
How many times do we see this with men? Fathers taking care of their children? Men making the meal for dinner? Dad’s doing the laundry? Guys in need of nail polish, makeup, etc.? Men sexualized? Sure that may be happening a bit more today but still, it is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of ads portraying women that way in the majority of today’s media.
Here is a then and now comparison of some ads from the 50s and today:
In the home:
Cleaning/Cooking:
Beauty:
Sexualized:
How far have we really progressed in the last fifty years? In another half-century, will we have progressed any more? What will they say of us, our portrait of the ideal woman in advertisements?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)