Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[DarkLight]

Mind, I certainly don’t agree with everything modern feminism teaches. I also, full disclaimer, grew up in a very conservative segment of protestantism. So about as isolated from feminism as you get in the modern west (not quite, but still). There’s a lot of things I’d wished I’d learned though, that I didn’t get until I was halfway through college and starting to get involved with feminism.

• Consent. A lot of people seemed to think that “no sex outside of marriage” obviated any need to talk about consent. One thing I wished people talked about was that consent doesn’t just apply to sex itself - it’s ok, for example, to say “I’m not ready to kiss you” and expect to be respected. This tended to be compounded with a painting of men as largely helpless against their sexual desires. If you believe pushing for more is something all men do, there’s no real reason to get away from a man who constantly pushes.
• Modesty. While I agree with the principle of modesty, a lot of people talked like it was a magic shield that would protect you from the inappropriate attentions of men. As a lot of people here probably realize, it just doesn’t work that way. When it comes to men who lack appropriate respect for women in the first place, a modestly dressed woman is not likely to command more respect. There’s also the reality that some bodies are sexualized more in our society than others, no matter how the woman is dressed.
• Date rape. A lot of this stems from the previous two points. Sexual assault, outside of the stranger in a dark alley situation, just wasn’t discussed. The general presumption tended to be that it was on a woman to not “tempt” a man. As an aside, there’s also a lot of psychology and biology that I didn’t know about. (One big one is that our brains don’t flip on command from “I like this person and want to spend time with him” to “I should scream and fight as hard as I can because I’m being assaulted.”)
• Femininity. The ultimate thing for me was that being “feminine” wasn’t really something I had to worry about - in either direction. I’m female, and that’s just a fact of life. I don’t have to worry that if I wear dresses and makeup it’s going to impact how seriously I’m taken as a logic student (or if I do it’s stupid). I don’t have to be “not like other women” to be in a male-dominated field. I also don’t have to worry that I’m not feminine enough if I do exactly that.
• Respect. A lot of the model of “masculinity” I learned was rather pushy and domineering. It was also, oddly enough, often very fragile. A “real man” didn’t want to be challenged or corrected by a woman; he wanted her to accept what he said. There wasn’t really much teaching that as a woman you should expect a man to respect and listen to you.

 

[Xantippe]

Mind, I certainly don’t agree with everything modern feminism teaches. I also, full disclaimer, grew up in a very conservative segment of protestantism. So about as isolated from feminism as you get in the modern west (not quite, but still). There’s a lot of things I’d wished I’d learned though, that I didn’t get until I was halfway through college and starting to get involved with feminism.

• Consent. A lot of people seemed to think that “no sex outside of marriage” obviated any need to talk about consent. One thing I wished people talked about was that consent doesn’t just apply to sex itself - it’s ok, for example, to say “I’m not ready to kiss you” and expect to be respected. This tended to be compounded with a painting of men as largely helpless against their sexual desires. If you believe pushing for more is something all men do, there’s no real reason to get away from a man who constantly pushes.
• Modesty. While I agree with the principle of modesty, a lot of people talked like it was a magic shield that would protect you from the inappropriate attentions of men. As a lot of people here probably realize, it just doesn’t work that way. When it comes to men who lack appropriate respect for women in the first place, a modestly dressed woman is not likely to command more respect. There’s also the reality that some bodies are sexualized more in our society than others, no matter how the woman is dressed.
• Date rape. A lot of this stems from the previous two points. Sexual assault, outside of the stranger in a dark alley situation, just wasn’t discussed. The general presumption tended to be that it was on a woman to not “tempt” a man. As an aside, there’s also a lot of psychology and biology that I didn’t know about. (One big one is that our brains don’t flip on command from “I like this person and want to spend time with him” to “I should scream and fight as hard as I can because I’m being assaulted.”)
• Femininity. The ultimate thing for me was that being “feminine” wasn’t really something I had to worry about - in either direction. I’m female, and that’s just a fact of life. I don’t have to worry that if I wear dresses and makeup it’s going to impact how seriously I’m taken as a logic student (or if I do it’s stupid). I don’t have to be “not like other women” to be in a male-dominated field. I also don’t have to worry that I’m not feminine enough if I do exactly that.
• Respect. A lot of the model of “masculinity” I learned was rather pushy and domineering. It was also, oddly enough, often very fragile. A “real man” didn’t want to be challenged or corrected by a woman; he wanted her to accept what he said. There wasn’t really much teaching that as a woman you should expect a man to respect and listen to you.

This is a** really **interesting topic!

–We don’t even really need to be talking about romantic relationships for consent/personal space/personal boundaries to be something to respect. For example, as I’ve mentioned before, my kids do not have to give hugs if they do not wish to. This is going to sound crazy pants, but I try to say, “Can I give you a hug?” before squeezing anybody. This means that the idea that they are used to the idea of being able to say “no” to physical contact
–“If you believe pushing for more is something all men do, there’s no real reason to get away from a man who constantly pushes.” Yes. I certainly wound up with that idea as an Evangelical teen. As I’ve mentioned before on CAF, I wound up with a sort of “hockey goalie” model, where the idea was that the young woman needs to fend off pucks and if she’s really really good at this, her reward is that she gets to marry the guy that she’s been fending off. Yeah. I did not realize it at the time, but that’s a really wretched model for courtship and marriage, for many reasons. First, as Darklight mentions, it encourages young women to stay with men who are pushy and selfish and don’t share their values. Second, it’s just not fair to the women. Thirdly, there’s conflict and a lack of cooperation and trust. Fourthly, it isn’t true that All Men Are Like That. A good guy will help you with chastity and lighten your burden, not BE a burden.

 

[Rachellem56]

Mind, I certainly don’t agree with everything modern feminism teaches. I also, full disclaimer, grew up in a very conservative segment of protestantism. So about as isolated from feminism as you get in the modern west (not quite, but still). There’s a lot of things I’d wished I’d learned though, that I didn’t get until I was halfway through college and starting to get involved with feminism.

• Consent. A lot of people seemed to think that “no sex outside of marriage” obviated any need to talk about consent. One thing I wished people talked about was that consent doesn’t just apply to sex itself - it’s ok, for example, to say “I’m not ready to kiss you” and expect to be respected. This tended to be compounded with a painting of men as largely helpless against their sexual desires. If you believe pushing for more is something all men do, there’s no real reason to get away from a man who constantly pushes.
• Modesty. While I agree with the principle of modesty, a lot of people talked like it was a magic shield that would protect you from the inappropriate attentions of men. As a lot of people here probably realize, it just doesn’t work that way. When it comes to men who lack appropriate respect for women in the first place, a modestly dressed woman is not likely to command more respect. There’s also the reality that some bodies are sexualized more in our society than others, no matter how the woman is dressed.
• Date rape. A lot of this stems from the previous two points. Sexual assault, outside of the stranger in a dark alley situation, just wasn’t discussed. The general presumption tended to be that it was on a woman to not “tempt” a man. As an aside, there’s also a lot of psychology and biology that I didn’t know about. (One big one is that our brains don’t flip on command from “I like this person and want to spend time with him” to “I should scream and fight as hard as I can because I’m being assaulted.”)
• Femininity. The ultimate thing for me was that being “feminine” wasn’t really something I had to worry about - in either direction. I’m female, and that’s just a fact of life. I don’t have to worry that if I wear dresses and makeup it’s going to impact how seriously I’m taken as a logic student (or if I do it’s stupid). I don’t have to be “not like other women” to be in a male-dominated field. I also don’t have to worry that I’m not feminine enough if I do exactly that.
• Respect. A lot of the model of “masculinity” I learned was rather pushy and domineering. It was also, oddly enough, often very fragile. A “real man” didn’t want to be challenged or corrected by a woman; he wanted her to accept what he said. There wasn’t really much teaching that as a woman you should expect a man to respect and listen to you.

Great post with wonderful points. Feminism gets too much of a bad reputation, when in reality it has some very valid points and truly tries to show women as people who should be respected.

 

[pensmama87]

I grew up in a mostly-secular politically conservative household. It’s interesting to me that I experienced many similar attitudes about women even though we were not “churchy” at all.

I’m not surprised that feminism appealed to me as an older teen and in my early twenties. Misogyny, albeit a “soft” form of it, was part of my everyday life. It was easy for me to believe that I had to throw all of it out for equality, not that there was something good that had been horribly, horribly twisted. But I knew next to nothing about Christianity at that time, besides stereotypes.

I remember how angry I was when I finally learned what the Church taught about human dignity - angry, and sad. It touched on something I had some how always known, but yet - nobody except me seemed to know it, and here the feminists I’d learned from for years had the Church set up as enemy no. 1.

 

[MaryT777]

Great post with wonderful points. Feminism gets too much of a bad reputation, when in reality it has some very valid points and truly tries to show women as people who should be respected.

I agree it was a great post. I enjoy a new topic and the well thought out concepts. Always good to read such items to glean something new you may be able to use yourself.

Mary.

 

[Xantippe]

–It’s OK for women (and for people in general) to have needs and express their needs. There are people out there who give “needs” a bad name, but needs are a real thing. If you have less than you need of whatever (food, water, sleep, exercise, free time) you’re going to be less effective than if you have enough.
–Ideally, there should be some sort of rough fairness between husband and wife. Ideally, it shouldn’t be the case that either the husband or wife has vastly more free time or spending money than the other.

 

[katy]

Mind, I certainly don’t agree with everything modern feminism teaches. I also, full disclaimer, grew up in a very conservative segment of protestantism. So about as isolated from feminism as you get in the modern west (not quite, but still). There’s a lot of things I’d wished I’d learned though, that I didn’t get until I was halfway through college and starting to get involved with feminism.

• Consent. A lot of people seemed to think that “no sex outside of marriage” obviated any need to talk about consent. One thing I wished people talked about was that consent doesn’t just apply to sex itself - it’s ok, for example, to say “I’m not ready to kiss you” and expect to be respected. This tended to be compounded with a painting of men as largely helpless against their sexual desires. If you believe pushing for more is something all men do, there’s no real reason to get away from a man who constantly pushes.
• Modesty. While I agree with the principle of modesty, a lot of people talked like it was a magic shield that would protect you from the inappropriate attentions of men. As a lot of people here probably realize, it just doesn’t work that way. When it comes to men who lack appropriate respect for women in the first place, a modestly dressed woman is not likely to command more respect. There’s also the reality that some bodies are sexualized more in our society than others, no matter how the woman is dressed.
• Date rape. A lot of this stems from the previous two points. Sexual assault, outside of the stranger in a dark alley situation, just wasn’t discussed. The general presumption tended to be that it was on a woman to not “tempt” a man. As an aside, there’s also a lot of psychology and biology that I didn’t know about. (One big one is that our brains don’t flip on command from “I like this person and want to spend time with him” to “I should scream and fight as hard as I can because I’m being assaulted.”)
• Femininity. The ultimate thing for me was that being “feminine” wasn’t really something I had to worry about - in either direction. I’m female, and that’s just a fact of life. I don’t have to worry that if I wear dresses and makeup it’s going to impact how seriously I’m taken as a logic student (or if I do it’s stupid). I don’t have to be “not like other women” to be in a male-dominated field. I also don’t have to worry that I’m not feminine enough if I do exactly that.
• Respect. A lot of the model of “masculinity” I learned was rather pushy and domineering. It was also, oddly enough, often very fragile. A “real man” didn’t want to be challenged or corrected by a woman; he wanted her to accept what he said. There wasn’t really much teaching that as a woman you should expect a man to respect and listen to you.

Those are all good points. I have difficulty understanding how a good movement got twisted. There is a good book on the subject, though, called Subverted.

 

[Walking_Home]

Great post with wonderful points. Feminism gets too much of a bad reputation, when in reality it has some very valid points and truly tries to show women as people who should be respected.

---

Ditto

 

[Lea101]

That women are unique individuals with different personalities, style, hobbies etc.

Christians I know would talk about how it’s proper for a woman to dress in a feminine manner, to be meek, to be nurturing. None of those things are bad, but it’s annoying how they imply that we should be striving to be like that “because Mary”

While feminists can be terrible, most of them encouraged individuality. If I liked to wear frilly dresses or a pantsuit…it just doesn’t matter.

That the difference between man and woman is not that extreme to the point where each sex has to play a fixed role (eg men to decide finances, women to be a homemaker). While feminism despise any difference in gender (which I don’t really agree with), they tend to focus on the ability, not the gender/stereotypes. Because of that, I feel like each person is more valued for who they are, not what they should be because of the average.

 

[lemongrass80]

The problem is that people spend too much time dismissing “radical” feminist ideas, and “man haters”, instead of listening to mainstream feminists.

As a feminist I believe that patriarchal views hurt both men and women. They pigeon hole people into being expected to act and think within very specific frameworks. Men aren’t allowed to express emotions, women aren’t allowed to be assertive, etc.

I believe in consent. Respect your body, and respect other people’s bodies. enthusiastic consent is something that should be openly discussed with children and teens and young adults (and old adults for that matter). I willl never force my children to hug or kiss someone they don’t want to, to “be polite”, it’s a terrible message to send.

I believe in civility, not chivalry. Don’t hold a door open for someone just because they’re a woman, but because it’s the polite thing to do for anyone.

I believe that mothers and fathers should take equal responsibility for parenting, and this should be reflected in custody arrangements when couples separate.

I look to men to be allies in realizing these ideals. We need to work together.

These are the things that the vast majority of feminists think about and care about.

Choosing to characterize and dismiss feminists based on the man hating beliefs of a radical few is like dismissing Christians as a whole by pointing to the horrid viewsof factions like wesboro baptist “church”.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Choosing to characterize and dismiss feminists based on the man hating beliefs of a radical few is like dismissing Christians as a whole by pointing to the horrid viewsof factions like wesboro baptist “church”.

Unfortunately many people who are into politics and the Culture War, see it as a game where there are only two teams on the field, and where bending the rules if fine if it results in the end of Winning. Many see the objective as just taking down the opposition and basking in their moral superiority over them, not actually having a dialogue and exchange of ideas.

But they don’t want to admit that, of course. So they justify their refusal to do so by painting the whole other side as consisting of irrational “haters” who can’t be reasoned with, only defeated. A common tactic in real wars with guns and bombs as well, to demonize and dehumanize the “enemy”.

 

[lemongrass80]

Unfortunately many people who are into politics and the Culture War, see it as a game where there are only two teams on the field, and where bending the rules if fine if it results in the end of Winning. Many see the objective as just taking down the opposition and basking in their moral superiority over them, not actually having a dialogue and exchange of ideas.

But they don’t want to admit that, of course. So they justify their refusal to do so by painting the whole other side as consisting of irrational “haters” who can’t be reasoned with, only defeated. A common tactic in real wars with guns and bombs as well, to demonize and dehumanize the “enemy”.

Nutpicking:

A the fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group – hence, “picking the nut”. It’s cherry picking a poor representative of the group – almost a straw man – to use as ad hominem against the group.

 

[Xantippe]

Nutpicking:

A the fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group – hence, “picking the nut”. It’s cherry picking a poor representative of the group – almost a straw man – to use as ad hominem against the group.

That’s a great term!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Nutpicking:

A the fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group – hence, “picking the nut”. It’s cherry picking a poor representative of the group – almost a straw man – to use as ad hominem against the group.

LOL! Is there also a term for the tactic of presenting a personal anecdote about being wronged by a member of a group, and showcasing it as representing what all members of the group do?

Such as the “my wife suddenly divorced me for no reason and spitefully took my kids away from me and moved 1000 miles away and the feminist judge let her, this means all men are victims of women in divorces” anecdotes.

 

[lemongrass80]

LOL! Is there also a term for the tactic of presenting a personal anecdote about being wronged by a member of a group, and showcasing it as representing what all members of the group do?

Such as the “my wife suddenly divorced me for no reason and spitefully took my kids away from me and moved 1000 miles away and the feminist judge let her, this means all men are victims of women in divorces” anecdotes.

If there isn’t there should be!

I think my MIL invented this.

 

[Xantippe]

A problem that I think comes up a lot is believing that if you disagree with a group about one thing (let’s say abortion), then you are going to have to disagree with them about EVERYTHING.

Nobody is wrong about absolutely everything, because we all have to function as human beings, and if our beliefs are completely non-functional, we wouldn’t be able to get through the day. Take for example if I believed that all of my daily nutritional requirements could be found by eating grass–sooner or later, I would have to deal with the reality of that not being an appropriate diet for me.

The modern era is not the first time that Christianity has had to deal with a competing body of ideals, some of which are compatible with Christianity, and some which are not. Early on in our history, Christian thinkers had to come to grips with Plato and other classical thinkers, and then later on, Aquinas was grappling with Aristotle.

Feminist and modern thought is very similar. You have a large body of ideas, and some of them are compatible with Christianity, and some of them are not, and it’s necessary to do the slow work of sifting and analyzing, rather than throwing it all out.

 

[lemongrass80]

A problem that I think comes up a lot is believing that if you disagree with a group about one thing (let’s say abortion), then you are going to have to disagree with them about EVERYTHING.

Nobody is wrong about absolutely everything, because we all have to function as human beings, and if our beliefs are completely non-functional, we wouldn’t be able to get through the day. Take for example if I believed that all of my daily nutritional requirements could be found by eating grass–sooner or later, I would have to deal with the reality of that not being an appropriate diet for me.

The modern era is not the first time that Christianity has had to deal with a competing body of ideals, some of which are compatible with Christianity, and some which are not. Early on in our history, Christian thinkers had to come to grips with Plato and other classical thinkers, and then later on, Aquinas was grappling with Aristotle.

Feminist and modern thought is very similar. You have a large body of ideas, and some of them are compatible with Christianity, and some of them are not, and it’s necessary to do the slow work of sifting and analyzing, rather than throwing it all out.

So very true.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

I will say that you must mean you wish Christianity would have taught you more about real feminism, not the bad fruits of radical “feminism.” That kind of so called “feminism” has had a bad name, and rightly so. I don’t defend it at all. Women I know who used to be radical “feminists” have said how they’ve turned from it once their eyes were opened and they could see how warped and unhealthy it really is. I know trying to say that women should be like Mary doesn’t “work” in our current day and age, but really it’s the truth. And I don’t think of Mary as being a mousy little doormat. I think of Her better than that, as being ladylike yet strong of mind and heart. The man/ woman relationship was never meant to be competitive. There is no “equality” as long as there is competition. When God created the Man from the dust of the earth, He saw it was “not good for him to be alone,” so He took the rib and formed the Woman, and they were designed to work alongside eachother, not against eachother, and together they were one. One flesh, complementary to eachother, equal. I know, I know, a woman is independent of a man, she was not created for man, and blah, blah, blah. But I’m not talking about our current age, I’m just saying how the man/ woman relationship was originally designed to be. Everything was perfect and beautiful, until sin ruined and uglified all of that.

 

[Walking_Home]

A problem that I think comes up a lot is believing that if you disagree with a group about one thing (let’s say abortion), then you are going to have to disagree with them about EVERYTHING.

Nobody is wrong about absolutely everything, because we all have to function as human beings, and if our beliefs are completely non-functional, we wouldn’t be able to get through the day. Take for example if I believed that all of my daily nutritional requirements could be found by eating grass–sooner or later, I would have to deal with the reality of that not being an appropriate diet for me.

The modern era is not the first time that Christianity has had to deal with a competing body of ideals, some of which are compatible with Christianity, and some which are not. Early on in our history, Christian thinkers had to come to grips with Plato and other classical thinkers, and then later on, Aquinas was grappling with Aristotle.

Feminist and modern thought is very similar. You have a large body of ideas, and some of them are compatible with Christianity, and some of them are not, and it’s necessary to do the slow work of sifting and analyzing, rather than throwing it all out.

---

Agree.

 

[UbiCaritas]

I will say that you must mean you wish Christianity would have taught you more about real feminism, not the bad fruits of radical “feminism.” That kind of so called “feminism” has had a bad name, and rightly so. I don’t defend it at all. Women I know who used to be radical “feminists” have said how they’ve turned from it once their eyes were opened and they could see how warped and unhealthy it really is. I know trying to say that women should be like Mary doesn’t “work” in our current day and age, but really it’s the truth. And I don’t think of Mary as being a mousy little doormat. I think of Her better than that, as being ladylike yet strong of mind and heart. The man/ woman relationship was never meant to be competitive. There is no “equality” as long as there is competition. When God created the Man from the dust of the earth, He saw it was “not good for him to be alone,” so He took the rib and formed the Woman, and they were designed to work alongside eachother, not against eachother, and together they were one. One flesh, complementary to eachother, equal. I know, I know, a woman is independent of a man, she was not created for man, and blah, blah, blah. But I’m not talking about our current age, I’m just saying how the man/ woman relationship was originally designed to be. Everything was perfect and beautiful, until sin ruined and uglified all of that.

I’ve said it before, but I think it bears repeating: as you say, Mary was not a mousy little doormat.

We’re talking about a young mother who left her home and family and country in order to protect her son in a time and place which was not at all kind to people who “weren’t from around here,” much less refugees.

In Nazareth, Joseph had a carpentry business. Since he was a saint, he was presumably honest in his dealings and did good work for the people who hired him, and so he’d have been able to make a decent living via repeat customers and word-of-mouth. (“Need a new house? Oh, you’ll want to talk to Joseph. Four streets over, third house on the left. Nice guy, built my brother a stable ten years ago that’s still standing.”) In Bethlehem, he would have at least had family connections to help him get day labor work. Egypt? Very unlikely. Very, very unlikely. It’s far more likely that Our Lady had to work as well as care for her Child in order to help Joseph put food on the table, at least during their Egypt stay. Oh, and she probably didn’t even speak the local language, which was Coptic back then.

A fragile flower type wouldn’t have lasted very long in those conditions, or born up under them with the grace I assume Mary showed in such trying circumstances. If you (general, not specific “you”) think for just a moment of how hard you’d have to work to survive in a place where you had no friends or family, no common language with most of the population, no easy way of getting a job, I think that would frame Marian femininity in a whole new light from the more traditional image of Mary sitting in a nice upper-middle-class house and bending gently over Baby Jesus’ cradle whilst doing a spot of embroidery.