Our culture seems to be in a tug of war over who represents the truest form of feminism. The political landscape has no doubt opened up this can of worms with Bachman and Palin discussed as examples of “evangelical feminism.” Both of these women have proven that women are capable and competent in politics, business and family. Perhaps they are the best possible portraits of “having it all” while “having it all” is probably the best definition of feminism. You can follow more of the conversation on “evangelical feminism” here and here and here.
At one point in my own life, I was seduced by the idea that maybe my views represented the truest form of feminism. After all, my view of humanity is one that embraces ontological gender equality. There is no qualitative difference between men and women and God’s love isn’t gender specific in application. Of course, my position as a complementarian is the cause for colleagues and acquaintances to wonder how I could actually claim the feminist moniker, because no one could possibly hold that there are different roles for the sexes while still holding a strong view on equality. But if complementarianism feels like inequality, it’s because feelings are the barometer.
As a seminary grad, I was proud to say I could play with the “big boys” in the world of evangelical theology. While many of my male peers in seminary were primarily focused on getting into the field to pastor without much concern for their grades, my desire and ability to excel academically proved that I was far from intellectually deficient. My appreciation for the authority of God and Scripture, however, set me apart from first wave feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton who struggled with the idea spiritual authority to the point of believing that the Bible was the primary cause of the subjugation of women. This sad legacy from the first wave of feminism gets little acknowledgement from any kind of feminist today but certainly deserves bold rejection.
My claim to feminism also depended on my unapologetic pro-life stance with derivative positions against the use of IVF, egg donation, surrogacy, etc. If women have ever been the target of objectification before, what the fertility industry is doing at the risk of women’s health is sinister and hardly pro-woman because each year billions of dollars are made on the backs of financially and emotionally vulnerable women. The irony of it all is that the fertility industry finds its justification through the cultural legacy of secular feminism. If women had not been encouraged to aspire to career before or in place of family, or if women had not come to embrace the new concept of family without father, likely science would not have had the market motivation to provide for every possible situation of childlessness (at this point, not necessarily infertility). Certainly rejecting anything harmful to women in any manner makes me a “true” feminist.
After seeing the recent discussions on the rise of “evangelical feminism,” I have finally concluded that evangelical women are being taken for a ride in this conversation on who is the true feminist. To take cultural ownership of the term “feminist” seems to suggest that secular feminism has been disarmed and left powerless. Maybe this is some of what’s going on—women are wising up and finding the virtues of secular feminism really aren’t so virtuous after all. But perhaps in this conversation there’s been too much emphasis on “feminist” and not enough on “evangelical.” There is a sense of credibility with culture tied to who actually has the most right to the term “feminist,” but that plays into the hand of secular culture entirely. While the gospel-centered ministry of the church cares about conversations with culture, we ought not actively make secular culture more alluring through our dependence on language and definitions rooted in secularism.
While I don’t know anything about the spiritual lives of Bachman or Palin, I am pretty sure they are Christian based on things they have said or I have heard said about them. Whether they claim to be “evangelical feminists” is also unclear to me. But they are merely a blip in history and the course of women’s lives is not best impacted by the best representations of feminism, but rather the best representations of Christianity. I’m not sure that Bachman or Palin are the best representatives of either, but I do know that evangelicalism with a respect for the authority of scripture is the best there is to offer to any woman.
August 1st, 2011 | 3:31 pm | #1
“but I do know that evangelicalism with a respect for the authority of scripture is the best there is to offer to any woman.”
Amen. And the Authority of Scripture leads to the title of your post:
“On Rejecting “Evangelical Feminism”
August 2nd, 2011 | 12:28 am | #2
The definition of feminism is indeed obfuscated, especially since “wave” after “wave” of feminism has come with new sets of characteristics. However, I don’t think the fact that Bachmann and Palin are strong women is indicative of them being feminists. It’s an easy buzzword to attach to both of them, but I don’t think it legitimately applies merely on the basis of their successes in the public sphere.
I also agree with the secular equivocation of feminism. I have no problem being called a feminist, but I am also firmly pro-life, both of which are not inconsistent. It is rather disturbing that many people who identify with the label feminism think that one view necessarily poisons the well.
I’m a firm egalitarian as well; I’m curious what Bachmann and Palin believe on that issue, since both identify with the Christian faith.
August 2nd, 2011 | 5:27 am | #3
I’m being serious when I ask this: what is feminism? If there are so many variations, even as diverse as “evangelical” and “secular”, then maybe the term doesn’t mean much. Can someone give me a standardized definition? Substance is more important than terminology, but terminology clarifications are important.
August 2nd, 2011 | 8:41 am | #4
Another question for discussion: Is “prolife feminist” an oxymoron?
August 2nd, 2011 | 1:18 pm | #5
A definition of feminist in the most generic sense is someone who believes in the equality of women and men without limitation. I find it difficult to converse on the feminist plain because while I agree in ontological equality, we disagree at a functional level. So I struggle the embrace of feminism among evangelicals, mostly those trying to Christianize it. The realm of politics has been helpful to their cause to find a Christian feminism, so evangelical feminism meets their needs for a conservative social ethic with a more egalitarian perspective.
August 2nd, 2011 | 4:21 pm | #6
If your definition is truly what feminism is, i.e. “without limitation”, then I am not a feminist. If ontological equality is all it means, then being a Christian is enough for me without having to “feminist” to it. My experience with feminism as an ideology has shown it to be a dangerous one. We know things by their fruit.
August 3rd, 2011 | 1:48 am | #7
Keith,
I don’t believe so at all. I’m a feminist, I suppose “without limitation,” but I think that women, just like men, have an equal obligation to not take innocent life. Moreover, I believe the rights of the female fetus in the womb are also to be considered.
Sarah,
That does indeed seem to be the issue, that of the functional level of male/female equality. Fortunately there aren’t many who hold an Aristotelian notion of the female.
August 3rd, 2011 | 5:03 pm | #8
Nikolai,
My issue with being called a “feminist” is that the term is so vague that it hardly bears any meaning. If belief in equality of the sexes is what makes a feminist then every Christian should be considered a “feminist”. God loves each sex equally, and calls us to follow in his love, therefore every Christian should be considered a feminist.
But at the same time Christians (largely) object to abortion. But society has so changed the term feminist and so closely related them with the pro-choice movement that in the political realm, it would be impossible to be considered a “feminist” without believing in the legality of abortion.
I’m not saying that this is correct, obviously I disagree, but the meaning of feminism has been, in my opinion, so overused and abused that it literally bears little meaning than simply a buzzword. It’s been used more as political ammunition than anything. “You believe political view X. Therefore you are not a feminist. Therefore you are a sexist”.
August 4th, 2011 | 2:38 am | #9
Can I not be a feminist and believe in the ontological equality of the sexes?
August 4th, 2011 | 3:35 am | #10
I think that we have to view this in its historical context. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time and study, devoted to history, I’m very sensitive to how women have been generally treated. They have, in most societies, been victims of exploitation, and abuse. These things still occur, but at least not on an institutionalized, and governmental level.
Feminism, (without the advocacy of abortion) is not only a perfectly understandable development historically, but is based on sound moral reasoning.
Some credible emerging neuroscientific evidence seems to suggest that, the male and female brains possess differences, reflecting how evolution shaped us. For example, women tend to be better at verbal traits, men perhaps have better spatial abilities. These neuroscientific findings can be easily misinterpreted. For one thing, they need to withstand the test of time. If further neuroscientific studies reflect the brain differences seemingly deciphered in the current ones, we can have more confidence in the notion that men and women really do have these differences, and its not a reflection of the limitations of the studies.
And,these preliminary neuroscientific findings, if true,don’t, obviously apply to every man, and every woman. unfortunately, some people who don’t understand statistics, may have a propensity to misunderstand this. After all, they might retort, I know a woman with good spatial abilities, and a man who speaks eloquently.
But these differences, if they exist, have absolutely no implications for equality. Men and women are ontologically equal.
August 4th, 2011 | 3:38 am | #11
When I say that women are not victims of abuse and exploitation, on an institutional and governmental level, I mean, of course, only in democratic republics such as the United States.
August 4th, 2011 | 3:39 am | #12
Orthodoxdj,
I think so. I once asked a feminist what feminism meant on a broad level, and she said that more or less all “waves” of feminism agree on the following:
(1) Men and women are fundamentally equal.
(2) There is a sexism, whether outright or subtle, that exists in today’s society, and we ought to move past that.
I think Bret’s point supplants the second tenant well.
August 4th, 2011 | 6:52 am | #13
Is it possible, then, that one day there could be a need for masculinism?
August 4th, 2011 | 1:40 pm | #14
Orthodoxdj,
I’m not sure what you mean. The reason I support much of feminism is that for too long we have had a male-dominated society that has subjugated women and stripped them of their rights. Now, it seems that with any movement that tries to bring up the oppressed, there is a sort of tendency to see things in a zero-sum manner; that is to say, “Now that we’re trying to bring women up to the same level as men, men must necessarily take many losses.” My goal is not to make women better than men socially but to make them equals.
Now I am aware that there are some feminists whose vitriol towards men makes it seem like feminists want women’s rights at the expense of men’s. This I do not support, any more than those who claim that because of the horrific atrocities committed against African-Americans, white people are inherently evil and dehumanizing. I reject any such characterizations. I hope the feminist movement does not come at the cost of labeling all men as inherently evil. One of my philosophy professors said this well in a chapter he wrote on sexism:
“A third move is to avoid the notion that what women want is male guilt. i taught a feminist philosophy class some years ago and came home daily feeling beaten up by the readings. Men were often, but not always, cast as a major source of evil-and not wrongly so. My guilt nearly froze me, and my response for awhile was to think that I could not find a solution so there was no point in trying. Guilt is not a great motivator in finding positive solutions. Dialogue and listening are.”
(See McLeod-Harrison, Mark. Apologizing for God: The Importance of Living in History Eugene: Cascade, 2011.)
August 4th, 2011 | 1:43 pm | #15
Not likely, but theoretically possible.
August 10th, 2011 | 10:48 am | #16
Palin and Bachmann appear to have done the exact opposite of what is insisted upon by feminism: instead of focusing on their career first, they had their children first – and then focused on their career.
This actually makes more sense. It makes no sense at all for a woman to invest heavily in her career until she is in her late 20s or early 30s (or later), then have kids, so that her attention is divided right at the worst possible time.
Since women can’t have their children in their mid-50s – and since so many women agree that children need lots of direct attention from their mothers in the first few years of life – the logical supposition would be that the ideal time to have your children would be early, so that one could start building a career when the children are old enough to not need their mom around so much.
The problem, of course, is that this requires a strong, ideally intergenerational family. The wife must trust the husband, and the husband must be trustworthy. This does not seem compatible with many things prominent feminists have said about the advisability of trusting husbands, or relying on anything but one’s own income.
August 20th, 2011 | 4:34 pm | #17
“Some credible emerging neuroscientific evidence seems to suggest that, the male and female brains possess differences, reflecting how evolution shaped us. – Bret”
You’re kidding, right? “Seems to suggest”?!? Men and women ARE different, i.e. NOT EQUAL. Brain structure, brain chemistry, bone structure, bone density, organ arrangement (you may notice that lack of ovaries in your abdomen), muscle mass, etc. The ONLY way men and women can be considered equal is in an ontological sense.
Forcing society to treat men and women as the same is as IDIOTIC as forcing parents to treat their children the same, when the only measurement of equality is “do you treat them exactly the same?” Calling for society to treat them equally is just as moronic as forcing it. The useful question isn’t “are you treating little Kelly the same as Chris”, it’s “are you treating little Kelly appropriately for Kelly, and Chris for Chris?” [You may assign sex to the above children as it pleases you, what with the androgynous names chosen... :-) ]
As for the “evangelical feminism” characterization that the media has trotted out, that’s easy to explain. To them, without feminism, women CANNOT succeed, so any successful woman MUST be a feminist. The purpose of the terminology is to hijack success to serve their worldview, whether it is warranted or not. Were Palin and Bachmann simply evangelicals, it is inconceivable to the media that they could have succeeded, so there must be some stealth feminism afoot, and by gosh by golly, better make sure it is credited.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact