Article: It's Time to Embrace Feminism's Anger

[Zoii]

The phenomenon of "political correctness" in higher education, is a powerful conspiracy theory generated by conservatives and conservative driven media. They have manipulated resentment against so-called 'leftist radicals' and feminists in particular, into a backlash against a fictional monster- political correctness.

Under this sort of paradigm, the matters of interest to feminists (which by the way are diverse - from sexual and domestic assault; to fair representation within our political system ) are aggregated into a collective purported by conservatives as being an anti-male sentiment. This tactic is a rallying cry to men who defend issues based on an XY chromosome membership, rather than a desire to see 50% of the population supported in the same way their gender has always been. Thus when women decry the issues that matter to them, they are dismissed to the bins of 'political correctness' - a term which has become a clarion to those men who no longer have to be labelled misogynist - they can instead appear as a bastion of reason against a wave of irrational feminist PC, and strip women of their right to protest those issues that matter to them.

 

[Paidiske]

Good grief, that's.... sickening. Surely no one who has listened to the trauma and broken lives of abuse victims can really believe a woman faithfully preaching and administering the sacraments is worse?

 

[Endeavourer]

Good grief, that's.... sickening. Surely no one who has listened to the trauma and broken lives of abuse victims can really believe a woman faithfully preaching and administering the sacraments is worse?

!!!!AMEN!!!!!

Recovering from abuse is a very painful, lifelong process. The word you used, sickening, says it all.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, look, a straw man...

 

[FireDragon76]

I do experience anger, but I think cultivating anger is not such a good thing. Not because injustice is unimportant, but because anger can be such a destructive emotion in terms of ones physical and mental health, and is often just self-defeating.

It's better to be assertive than angry, there is a huge difference.

 

[Paidiske]

This?

I'm very familiar with it. It's a very useful tool for explaining the various dynamics of abuse.

There's nothing in it that is hatred or contempt for Christianity, men, the family unit, etc. As a feminist myself - and a married Christian with a family - I have no such hatred or contempt. So yes, your post was attacking a straw man.

 

[bekkilyn]

Maybe it would be a good idea to take the woman-hate out of the Egalitarian forum at the very least?

It's kind of funny in a non-funny way that after someone makes a post showing a CF member in support of the concept that women in ministry are worse than male child molesters, someone else shows up for no other purpose but to continue to bash women. What an incredible Christian witness.

 

[bekkilyn]

I do experience anger, but I think cultivating anger is not such a good thing. Not because injustice is unimportant, but because anger can be such a destructive emotion in terms of ones physical and mental health, and is often just self-defeating.

It's better to be assertive than angry, there is a huge difference.

I agree with you for the most part, but at the same time I believe that there is a place for righteous anger when it comes to injustice. Righteous anger can motivate us to make necessary changes. Perhaps it is more like being assertive than what most of us think of as anger, since we tend to think of anger as being uncontrolled.

 

[Zoii]

Here's one Yeshuaslavejeff (see red quote, further below, in response to my post), where a poster says that women in the clergy are worse than child molesters in the clergy.

Ugh this is just awful. This issue - this prevalence of christian malevolence towards women and women's issues, is one of the main issues that has turned me away from Christianity.

I don't want to feel upset and angered; and that's precisely how I felt when I thought about God within a christian context. Because its the christian context, or rather the christian religious institutional context, that insists that as a female I must take a subordinate position in society, and bear the brunt of guilt for all that is evil in the world, starting with EVE.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was thinking about that! Yes, we learned that acronym in Sunday School. There was a song:

Jesus and Others and You, what a wonderful way to spell JOY.
Jesus and Others and You, in the life of each girl and each boy.
J is for Jesus, for he has first place.
O is for Others we meet face to face.
Y is for You and whatever you do.
Put yourself last and spell JOY.

(Anybody else sing that in Sunday School?)

When I was a kid, the song seemed fine. Put yourself last, yep, that's what we're supposed to do. And maybe it was a fine message for my 8-year-old self, a corrective to natural human selfishness. But now that I'm an adult, the song seems more sinister. In everyday family relationships, for example, I'm always supposed to yield to other people's preferences? In the workplace, I'm never supposed to assert my own needs and rights?

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is an important message: Recognize that other people are every bit as much children of God as you are, and recognize their needs as being as important as your own. But going farther, loving your neighbor 10 times as much as yourself, isn't as healthy as I thought it was when I was 8.

I'll note that we're no longer in gender-specific territory. The song could encourage boys and girls alike to erase themselves, if they're of a particularly receptive temperament.

I don't the message is inherently sinister, though perhaps it could be abused. Little kids are incredibly selfish and they do need to learn to see the world beyond themselves. But it might not be the best message for a grown adult, especially one that has found themselves losing their sense of integrity. Serving others could simply become people pleasing, which doesn't really fit the Christian ideal of love, which must involve truth.

 

[Endeavourer]

Ugh this is just awful. This issue - this prevalence of christian malevolence towards women and women's issues, is one of the main issues that has turned me away from Christianity.

Zoii, there's a huge difference between Christianity and churchianity.

Enormous difference, yet churchianity masquerades as the face of Christianity. And Christians let churches and church elites get away with it because they've been trained to view such actions through twisted filters.

Untwisting those filters to see Christ in a true light is a long process, but a beautiful one.

(No reference with respect to churchianity is meant to Paidiske. I wanted to call that out since she has been an active participant in this discussion. I am not referring to her.)

 

[Endeavourer]

. Because its the christian context, or rather the christian religious institutional context, that insists that as a female I must take a subordinate position in society, and bear the brunt of guilt for all that is evil in the world, starting with EVE.

This is absolutely not true of Christ's teachings, nor of Paul's teachings. I had to do a lot of studying to untwist these scriptures in my own mind because churchianity had brainwashed me as a child up to reflexively understand those Scriptures in that way.

A great study on women's issues in the Bible is "Man and Woman: Once in Christ" by Phillip Payne. I initially didn't agree with more than 25% of the book (although that 25% was a YUUUGE relief to me), but when I came back after thinking about it more, I realized I needed to open my mind to more of it. It's been a refreshing perspective as I'm growing to more fully embrace my value to my Lord as a female.

Also, "What's with Paul and Women?" by John Zens was really helpful.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with you for the most part, but at the same time I believe that there is a place for righteous anger when it comes to injustice. Righteous anger can motivate us to make necessary changes. Perhaps it is more like being assertive than what most of us think of as anger, since we tend to think of anger as being uncontrolled.

I have seen how righteous anger plays out in the Christian Right's playbook and I don't believe it's healthy or fruitful.

The Ven. Thitch Nhat Hanh talks about anger being a sign we need to engage in self-care and self-compassion, and I think that is more helpful: Buddhism typically seeks transformation of negative emotions into something positive. I think that is a better model. That might involve seeking justice in our relationships, but it need not involve all the other baggage that frequently accompanies anger.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not aware of Christ teaching that anger is sinful. Rather I see Paul teaching us to "Be angry but do not sin," which implies that not all anger is sinful. Clearly not, since Christ himself is recorded as speaking and acting in anger, and Christ did not sin!

 

[Zoii]

Zoii, there's a huge difference between Christianity and churchianity.

Enormous difference, yet churchianity masquerades as the face of Christianity. And Christians let churches and church elites get away with it because they've been trained to view such actions through twisted filters.

Untwisting those filters to see Christ in a true light is a long process, but a beautiful one.

(No reference with respect to churchianity is meant to Paidiske. I wanted to call that out since she has been an active participant in this discussion. I am not referring to her.)

There are key issues that made me believe that to call myself a christian was to misrepresent Christianity (and myself):

I cannot understand or accept the adverse views regarding sex. I simply dont understand the perverse obsession with it. Its regarded as virtually one of the most gravest of sins and spills into issues of:

• sex outside of wedlock - my friends are caring and intelligent and I wont denounce them simply because they are in a relationship - to me its no-one's business but theirs.
• Same sex relationships and marriage. - Someone of the same sex tells me they love me - how is that an abomination?
• Divorce - I simply don't accept or understand that Christianity demands that someone cant divorce. Particularly when its so necessary to sort issues of finance, child custody, property settlements, and matters of personal protection.
• Contraception - the views that even the use of condoms is sinful is not only bizarre to me, it fosters poor health protection, particularly in areas where STDs are high. I also deplore views that Human Papilliovirus immunisation is forbidden based on the notion that it fosters promiscuity. Such a view only serves to push me away from the religion.
• That women are to submit - I know that theres a variety of views about this. But after hearing many of them here - all I can say is that I submit to no-one. If I have someone in my life we will be sharing everything including sex.

This view of sex also spills to into how christianity responds to feminist ideals.

• women in leadership
• women as preists
• women who work and are the main bread-winners
• women who want equal power in domains where they hold equivalent knowledge and skills

Such views are not regarded well in Chrsitianity.

I could go on - but I've just found that my views arent a match and I am simply an impostor if I adopt the label of christian. It doesn't mean I have given up thinking about God, the universe and my place within it - That still continues

 

[bekkilyn]

I have seen how righteous anger plays out in the Christian Right's playbook and I don't believe it's healthy or fruitful.

I'm not sure I would agree that their anger is what I would consider righteous, since they nearly always seem to be supportive of whatever injustices others are protesting.

The Ven. Thitch Nhat Hanh talks about anger being a sign we need to engage in self-care and self-compassion, and I think that is more helpful: Buddhism typically seeks transformation of negative emotions into something positive. I think that is a better model. That might involve seeking justice in our relationships, but it need not involve all the other baggage that frequently accompanies anger.

However, Buddhism does not try to pretend that anger doesn't exist and needs to be suppressed. You are allowed to feel your anger and then at some point, let it go. I tend to agree. If God intended us to *never* be angry, he would not have created us with the ability to be angry. If anger was *always* negative, then God would never get angry because there is nothing evil in God. The problems we tend to have with anger is how we respond to it. We may react in a vengeful way (when vengeance belongs to God) or in some other way that is destructive to ourselves or others. So it's not really so much the anger itself that is destructive, but how we respond to it.

We can instead learn to respond to our anger in constructive ways without also attempting to deny that the anger exists. For a Buddhist, it would mean responding in a way that decreases or removes suffering.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure I would agree that their anger is what I would consider righteous, since they nearly always seem to be supportive of whatever injustices others are protesting.

The human tendency is towards self-centeredness, no matter how good our intentions. Everybody has the tendency to believe they are right and people that disagree with them are wrong.

If I took my anger that seriously, sometimes I think it would lead me to just storm out of church and never go back, and become a religious none. There is so much I feel outraged about in this world that the Church is silent about. So, I usually keep a tight lid on my anger. I am trying to think of constructive ways to deal with the emotion, but it is challenging.

 

[bekkilyn]

The human tendency is towards self-centeredness, no matter how good our intentions. Everybody has the tendency to believe they are right and people that disagree with them are wrong.

If I took my anger that seriously, sometimes I think it would lead me to just storm out of church and never go back, and become a religious none. There is so much I feel outraged about in this world that the Church is silent about. So, I usually keep a tight lid on my anger. I am trying to think of constructive ways to deal with the emotion, but it is challenging.

If you are outraged about an injustice, one constructive way of dealing with that sort of anger would be getting involved in an organization that is attempting to do something about it in a way that you feel is constructive.

The problem with just keeping a tight lid on your anger is that eventually the pressure will build up in such a way that you will ultimately explode, and probably in a very damaging way, either to yourself or to others or to both, so it is good that you are researching constructive ways to deal with it vs. just letting it build up.

Things like meditation and physical exercise can be helpful. Also just admitting it exists and talking to someone you trust are good steps as well.

 

[Endeavourer]

I cannot understand or accept the adverse views regarding sex. I simply dont understand the perverse obsession with it. Its regarded as virtually one of the most gravest of sins and spills into issues of:

My favorite Baptist joke is:
Q: Why do Baptist preach against premarital sex?
A: Because it might lead to dancing.

Although a joke, I think it illustrates the silliness of some of the positions you have been subjected to in the rest of your post. Positions that do REAL harm to REAL people. Positions that Christ does not teach or support.

• sex outside of wedlock - my friends are caring and intelligent and I wont denounce them simply because they are in a relationship - to me its no-one's business but theirs.

I've come to think the Biblical view on this is that moving in together is not a sin, but that moving in together represents a marriage. The Bible does not require a marriage ceremony or a marriage license anywhere. To my conscience, I would view breaking up from this relationship as a divorce. To my conscience, there are good reasons for divorce that the Lord supports, and bad reasons that He does not support.

• Same sex relationships and marriage. - Someone of the same sex tells me they love me - how is that an abomination?

I don't have the answers for this, but nor do I picket or revile those with same sex affections. I know there's a lot I don't understand, but this I do:

Matthew 22:37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
​

I feel this tells me that loving my neighbor as myself is more important than throwing any law at them. There are a lot of things about God's ways I don't understand and I am looking forward to some answers to some things when I get to meet him. But, it is not for me to enforce God's law; it's just for me to love people as much as I love myself.

• Divorce - I simply don't accept or understand that Christianity demands that someone cant divorce. Particularly when its so necessary to sort issues of finance, child custody, property settlements, and matters of personal protection.

This is a man made construct. Churchianity is making that demand, not Christianity. The full counsel of Scripture very much supports divorces of necessity. To my conscience, it supports divorce for abandonment, abuse, unfaithfulness and to protect your health. When I was under the bondage of Churchianity on this issue, the Lord caused me to read the second half of Isaiah 28, starting with the verse declaring that I have made a covenant with death. That chapter totally blows any argument about a "covenent" being some permanent thing so special that even when it's broken by one party it has to be kept by the other. That's not Scriptural. There is much more in the full counsel of Scripture that exposes the sadistic lie behind the never divorce theologies, but I could literally write a book that won't fit in this post.

• Contraception - the views that even the use of condoms is sinful is not only bizarre to me, it fosters poor health protection, particularly in areas where STDs are high. I also deplore views that Human Papilliovirus immunisation is forbidden based on the notion that it fosters promiscuity. Such a view only serves to push me away from the religion.

Again, totally churchianity. Where is this in Scripture? Who says protecting yourself from an STD fosters promiscuity??? That's like saying not learning to swim keeps you from drowning. This whole concept of out-Godding God himself is evil in His sight. Our best righteousnesses are as filthy rags, yet churchianity piles sacrificial misery upon all of us as if that will contribute one iota to Christ's full and complete sacrifice for our sins.

• That women are to submit - I know that theres a variety of views about this. But after hearing many of them here - all I can say is that I submit to no-one. If I have someone in my life we will be sharing everything including sex.

I have been really harmed by this notion myself, and subjected myself to 25 years of abuse in a marriage because I thought I was supposed to submit, and that the Bible did not permit divorce. I recommend those books I mentioned earlier as a step towards understanding what is REALLY in Scripture.

Did you know that the word "submit" is not in the original transcript in this verse?

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.​

In fact, that verse follows this one:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.​

In the Greek, if you are using the same verb in the same way in the following paragraph, you don't repeat the verb.
Churchianity tries to tell us that those are two different submits... and that 21 excludes husbands since 22 spells it out for wives. That is totally backwards. 21 states the concept (and it's mutual) and 22 echoes the mutuality of submission.

If they want 22 to mean husbands don't have to submit at all to wives, then love (v. 25 Husbands love your wives) doesn't apply to wives. Right? Churchianity demands both love and submission out of wives, and allows love and dominance to the husbands. Nowhere does Scripture give husbands permission to lord over or dominate their wives. The submission is mutual; the love is mutual. Churchianity has it all wrong.

This view of sex also spills to into how christianity responds to feminist ideals.

• women in leadership
• women as preists
• women who work and are the main bread-winners
• women who want equal power in domains where they hold equivalent knowledge and skills

Such views are not regarded well in Chrsitianity.

Again, huge difference between churchianity and christianity. But, priests are no longer necessary because Jesus has paid the final and full sacrifice. He is our mediator. We don't need human mediators anymore. We don't need priests assigning penance anymore. Jesus paid for us, in full.

I could go on - but I've just found that my views arent a match and I am simply an impostor if I adopt the label of christian. It doesn't mean I have given up thinking about God, the universe and my place within it - That still continues

If you have realized that you are a sinner and you have turned to Christ for deliverance and believed upon him for your salvation, you are a Christian. And your positions above perfectly reflect an enlightened perspective of a Christian who has been through trials and given the wisdom to see the deadness of the elites pushing their legalistic churchianity as what Christ wants of us. Christ was right there with you and he called the religious elites who do this whited sepulchres:

Matt 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

 

[Paidiske]

Just a note on priests; in Christianity a priest is not a mediator or sacrifice-offerer; the word is a contraction of the Greek word for "elder." Priests are meant to be elders and leaders, but can never take the place of Christ.