Originally published on my personal blog:
For the past four years or so, I have really struggled with that it means to be a godly woman. What is unique about me as a woman in contrast to my husband, as a man? What is my role as a woman? What kind of character should I exude? Is it different from my husband’s? Is there anything special I need to be doing as a woman, for instance, in the way I order my day or behave toward others or teach my children? Should I be dressing a certain way? Is God more concerned about my developing specifically “feminine” character, Christian character, or both? Am I becoming a legalist?
Does any of this really matter?
I have searched and studied. The internet can be a dangerous place for a woman with too much time on her hands. That is where I found myself just under three years ago. My daughter had just died at 20w 5d gestation and I didn’t know what to do with myself. My home was in order. I was working from home. I had no other children. And there it was… the internet. I found a wonderful site called A Christian Home, a site maintained by a woman I truly admire, Pam Spurling. She has compiled the most incredible links to articles and sites all dealing with some of the issues I listed above. Through her site, I found Ladies Against Feminism, a site which sent me on a tailspin. This site taught all kinds of ideas to which I’d never been exposed before- women should not work outside the home; women should dress with femininity and modesty (the modesty part I’d seen before, but femininity?) and that meant in skirts or dresses; homemaking is a woman’s glory; women should stay home until they marry and not go to college… I’ll admit it. I was taken in. I didn’t throw out my pants or anything, but I did start wearing skirts and dresses most, if not all of the time.
When I had a nervous breakdown shortly after we returned from Colorado, I was able to be a stay-at-home wife, then mother a few months later. What a glorious time! It all seemed to make sense- how could I work outside the home, even if it would help my husband, when my calling, my vocation, my glory, God’s LAW required me to stay home? That’s how I saw it for a while, albeit a short while, anyway.
I had no idea that the standards imposed by LAF and other sites were extrabiblical or culturally mandated instead of being required by God until I really started digging. Oh sure, they believe that God is behind everything they write about- from wearing dresses to daughters “giving their hearts to their fathers”, but be assured that you will not find much of it commanded in God’s Word. It all sounds great. By doing things this way, you are fulfilling God’s role for you as a woman. All those questions I’d been asking had been answered… or so I thought.
I didn’t want to see that I was making my husband miserable. I sure was miserable. Let me explain. I love homemaking and child-rearing. I do believe it is my calling and my vocation. I have no career aspirations outside the home whatsoever. I certainly am happiest when I am home. I derive a good deal of satisfaction out of having a clean, orderly home. I feel even more satisfied when Nicky recites the first ten answers of the Children’s Catechism to me when I ask him the questions. I love it. Heck, I even prefer to wear skirts and dresses, but that’s more to do with the “look” I’m going for (funky-hippie) as opposed to being “feminine and modest”. Anyway, something wasn’t right. I can’t quite put my finger on it. I’ll have to ask the Chief.
Anyway, something happened between two friends of mine that exploded any lasting desire I had to live in this fantasy world. The details are unimportant. However, as I’ve watched the negative impact this has had on a friend of mine and how it is impacting and challenging her marriage, how its affecting her relationships with others outside her home, I became convinced that all the ideas needed a thorough going-over in my mind. I’ve come to several conclusions.
1. Radical Feminism is bad news. I think I’ve always accepted that. It is right and good to work against it, in our homes, in our churches, and in the world at large. The question then arises: what is the proper response to feminism? Is it really legalism? (Let me pause here by saying that I do not believe that all these are teaching “legalism unto righteousness” meaning “if you follow these rules, you will be saved.” Not at all! I would suggest that they are teaching a sort of legalism that adds human tradition to God’s Law. This legalism also focuses primarily on the external. Another definition I think is useful is this: attempting to obtain godliness through a systematic change in behavior). I believe these sites propagate legalism.
The answer, of course, to the questions I’ve posed above- No, the proper response to feminism is not legalism. It is not focusing on the external. The response is not homemaking. It is not a return to the Victorian views of women promoted so heavily on these sites, a charge which they deny but cannot be escaped, I’m afraid. The response is not withdrawing from the world or wearing “dresses-only”. I’m not sure what the answer to feminism is, but I know its not this.
2. The view of the family propogated by LAF, Vision Forum, the Botkin sisters and others is catered to white, upper-middle class Americans and disenfranchises millions of Christians worldwide. Think about it for a second- how many people around the world can afford to have mom stay home while dad is away working? How many Americans can actually do that? Pretty much only white, upper-middle class families. They recommend that DAD stay home and start his own business. How many men can do that? How many families can actually afford to feed the ten children they could have if they don’t practice some form of family planning? That is a real, down-in-the-dirt concern for millions of families worldwide! And that is totally ignored by these people.
Think about it- if this is GOD’S way for the family, it must transcend culture. It must be God’s way for every family, in every country and culture, for all time. Frankly, I think many of their views on entreprenurialism, modesty, homeschooling, and women are based on Western American cultural mores rather than on God’s Word. Believe me, if I believed that this truly was “God’s Way” for women/families etc. to operate, I’d be the first one in line to promote these views… but I don’t, so I don’t.
3. God is more concerned with character and relationships than he is with whether or not I earn an income outside the home or wear a dress. Seriously. He cares more about how well I nurture my husband that whether or not my kitchen floor is clean. He’d rather I spend time with my children than spend time scrubbing the bathtub. It really isn’t as much about what you do as who you are.
I spent some great time with my own Titus 2 mentor this weekend. Rachel has never taught me a thing about managing my home. She bakes bread, but I’ve never gleaned one insight from her on how to get my finicky wheat dough to rise better. What she HAS taught me is how to accept my husband for who he is and love him for it. She has taught me how to love and treat others who are different from me. She has been a shining example of a life poured out in service to others, her husband and family first, her church, and then her friends and strangers alike. She has taught me to embrace those qualities that are particular to my husband, even if they are qualities that frustrate me.
Never compromising in doctrine, constantly learning, valuing education, Rachel is the epitomy of a biblical woman. She is gracious and hospitable. She listens! She cares! And its never “her way or the highway”. For her, relationships are what is important. I watch her with Jim, how she cares for him, how makes his needs her priority, but somehow knowing how to balance his needs with her own the needs of others. She is a tremendous listener and learner. I cannot speak more highly of her character. I know the heart of her husband safely trusts in her and that her children rise up and bless her- even those who have a rocky relationship with the Lord.
Frankly, I’m not sure what the response to feminism is, but I am thoroughly convinced that it is not what purports these days to be “biblical patriarchy.”
I prefer to follow the Christ-like example set forth by my very dear mentor than allow myself to become obsessed with the length of my hemline or whether or not I am bearing Adam’s curse as well as Eve’s. I am a Christian first and then a woman.
Feminism is a lot like Christianity—-it’s huge, and members come in all different stripes. The core of feminism is somethign that I think every Christian should embrace because it’s something that we saw Christ doing: treating women as full human beings worthy of respect, NOT treating/viewing them as lesser-than’s to men.
So it is for that reason that I’ve decided to call myself a feminist. Feminism, at it’s CORE, is the belief that men and women are equal. (Which is not the same thing as saying they don’t have any differences, but rather with respect to *personhood,* they are equal).
The hyper-conservative camp has made “feminist” into the new f-word. I think it’s high time we take it back instead of cow-towing to their propogandizing fear-mongering warnings. I like how you specified, “radical feminist.” THAT, I’m totally against, in the same way that I’m totally against the hyper-patrios. Both are destructive philosophies.
Both are extremist camps, fringe groups, loud squeaky ones that DO NOT represent the whole. In the same way that the hyper-patrios do not represent Christianity, radical feminists do not represent feminism.
However *basic* feminism in and of itself, the idea that women should have the right to vote just as men, the idea that a man shouldn’t get paid more than a woman for doing the same job, THOSE things, I’m totally for. Which, in effect, makes me a feminist.
My 2 Cents,
Molly
God is more concerned with character and relationships than he is with whether or not I earn an income outside the home or wear a dress.
Btw, a HUUUUGE amen!
I feel, too, that I need a defining adjective when I use the word feminism. Without one, it encompasses so much, things I agree with, things I disagree with. On a more scholarly side, feminist without an adjective can embrace multiple movements over a long historical time period. It’s just too vague, IMO.
If I come to one subset of my friends and say I’m a feminist, then they hear it that I’m embracing all of things that I disagree with.
If I come to another subset of my friends and tell them I’m *not* a feminist, they hear it that I’m rejecting all of the things that I do agree with.
So defining terms are necessary.
Plus, if any of the patriocentrists visited a country even for a week (as I did) where there aren’t any rights (or even very limited rights) for women, they would be very thankful for their freedoms. Even the education to articulate their belief system and the right to blog freely about their positions is due in part to earlier battles for women’s rights.
I, too, am confused about the term “feminist”. At its root is the word feminine. Now I have been defined as uber feminine because I love being married, my husband, my children, my home, my jewelry, my makeup, my high heels, etc. Having lived through the 1960s & 1970s, I am totally confused with this term. NOW (the organization) barely has any members. So why all the hype about a group that does not really have any power?
Again, I am lost about what the word feminism means. The bible talks about a worker being worthy of a living wage. So, women receiving pay at the same grade as a man seems okay dokay. The Bible does not prohibit women from voting. Molleth’s statement of, ” treating women as full human beings worthy of respect, NOT treating/viewing them as lesser-than’s to men,” is consistent with Scripture.
So, why all the chest-thumping in certain camps? Are these men that insecure about their masculinity and their Christianity? May be they need to deal with those issues first before they step behind a pulpit. The arguments put forward by this camp tends to run very purile and demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge within Christiandom.
I absolutely LOVE Cally Tyrol’s statement: “God is more concerned with character and relationships than he is with whether or not I earn an income outside the home or wear a dress.”
Again, another well written article. Thank you for taking the time and KNOW that many are praying for your success with this web site.
I am totally confused with this term. NOW (the organization) barely has any members. So why all the hype about a group that does not really have any power?
It is simple ad hominem. The patriocentrists are attaching a term that is disliked by most of conservative Evangelicals to a group within their own ranks. In this way, they can bypass the intellect and move directly to emotion and perhaps more people will be fooled into believing their stupidity. “White Washed Feminist” really has nothing to do with the now essentially defunct Feminist movement. (Or with watered-down paint either, for that matter)
Feminist is the new F-word. Yes.
Anyone familiar with the Bayly brothers? Their definition of Feminist is any person who doesn’t subscribe to their particular brand of Patriarchy. They even call the people over at CBMW feminists!
Cally, you made some very good points with this post.
“I’m not sure what the response to feminism is, but I am thoroughly convinced that it is not what purports these days to be “biblical patriarchy.”
Radical feminism was a strong, ideological response to both real and perceived wrongs in the culture.
Patriocentrism was a strong, ideological response to both real and perceived wrongs in the culture.
Looking at other -isms in history, we can see a similar pattern of reactionary extremes. . .
Reacting in such ways, imo, is not a way to build a healthier culture.
Amen, TulipGirl. Reactions always bring with them new issues of their own as the pendulum swings the other way. Rather than reacting to what others are doing wrong, we should try to focus our own personal sights on scripture.
I think part of the reason that feminism took off so huge and became so ugly, was not the womens’ fault. Can we blame them for wanting freedom from drunken, philandering husbands? Instead of being valued as equals, they were viewed as pretty diversions who also kept the parlor clean. So…we get radical feminism….then later we get the Botkin sisters to fix everything, who talk like they’re on valium and always portray “perfect” femininity. Ugh. Can we just be normal? Christianity isn’t about dressing up as Dolly Madison, OR *suprise* how many banana breads you’ve baked.
Molly, SO well-said on feminism! That’s me exactly