Is evangelical feminism an oxymoron?
A slew of writings has recently emerged about the "evangelical feminism" represented by women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Since I studied women like these for my first book, "God's Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission," I've been on a few reporters' call lists for commentary. A lot of confusion remains, however, and I hope I can contribute something more substantial to this discussion.
First, everyone should realize that the version of evangelical feminism we're witnessing in current Republican politics is a far cry from this term's original meaning. As Pam Cochran has written in her important study, "Evangelical Feminism: A History," the movement in its earlier form emerged in the 1970s. Its promoters were Christian women who believed that Jesus was a thoroughgoing egalitarian and that Christian principles were perfectly compatible with the ideals of equality emerging from the Women's Liberation Movement. While evangelical feminism has taken a number of different directions since then, it typically leans moderately left on most political issues, which is one reason why it has captured the wrath of hardline complementarians like Wayne Grudem and John Piper. ("Complementarianism" is the view that God designed men and women not to be equal but to be complementary, with men as the leaders and women as helpmeets.)
Palin and Bachmann decidedly do not lean left. What is "feminist" about them, for those who want to use that descriptive, is their belief that God calls women no less than men to fight His battles against Satan on earth. Women hold awesome power as spiritual warriors, in this worldview; they're not doormats, nor should their godly duties be confined to the domestic sphere. This is its own sort of egalitarianism, to be sure, but it is one far more compatible with the complementarian theology of arch-conservative Protestantism than with the feminism of liberal religion. After all, Bachmann and Palin have both made much of their roles as wives, mothers and churchgoers in a way meant to show that their political leadership will not upend the gender hierarchy so crucial in the conservative evangelical home and church sanctuary.
To the feminists who make their homes in secular or religiously liberal circles -- such as member of the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the Center for Women's Global Leadership, the International Alliance of Women, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights -- women like Palin and Bachmann represent a dangerously regressive form of womanhood: a sort of capitulation to the hierarchical gender norms of yore. Even to hear them called feminist feels anathema, especially since their politics show a willingness to execute policies that do nothing to empower individual women, men and children on earth. And I expect that many of the earlier evangelical feminist pioneers (the late Nancy Hardesty, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, etc.) have been just as unhappy to see the media now using this term with no apparent recognition of its origins.
The more interesting phenomenon here is to see how surprised so many pundits continue to be at the fact that so many American women and men actually LIKE newfangled evangelical feminists such as Bachmann and Palin. Of course they do! These women embody that combination of conventional beauty (with a wink of sex appeal), earnestness, piety, accessibility and steely certitude of their own godliness that comprises the highest ideal of white conservative evangelical womanhood today. They're like those pretty, popular girls at church camp by whom awkward girls like me hoped to be acknowledged, or even (gosh) befriended. Always, the boys liked them best, but you felt cooler just basking in their aura. If these girls accepted you, you knew you were OK.
Palin and Bachmann are also excellent at embodying the female victim: a woman who works hard to make it on her smarts and hard work but who gets criticized for her looks and scorned as a dumb girl, over and over again. Liberals may scoff at Palin's criticisms of the lamestream media's obsessive derision, but she's frankly got a point. I am no fan of the political programs of either woman, and yet -- I'll admit it -- the appallingly sexist mockery of them has more than once inspired me to identify with them against their smug denigrators. For me, raised by a feminist mother and a feminist myself since adolescence, that's saying something.
Even today, many American women from all walks of life experience feelings of degradation that stem from the socialized devaluation of their femaleness. Conservative and liberal women alike endure subtle forms of misogyny every day. In my experience, sharing these war stories is one practice that bridges women across many other kinds of social divides. For evangelicals, to be persecuted is to be blessed; and the more Palin and Bachmann are belittled (rather than civilly debated), the greater their popularity. Surely, we are smart enough to understand that.
Perhaps we should take heart that the evangelical feminism represented by Palin and Bachmann is so wildly popular among segments of conservative Americans. Even if its appeal is as much about style as about substance, a door has opened that will not be easily shut. There's no reason why feminists of another, more progressive sort couldn't take a lesson here, if we pause to consider what it may be.
Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? - Google Books
Is 'evangelical feminist' an oxymoron? - Guest Voices - The ...
Hard to Believe? Biblical Authority and Evangelical Feminism ...
Michele Bachmann, evangelical feminist? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN ...
This is the big, bad world, Ms. Griffith. We need to grow beyond our HS cliques where the boys decided who's popular according to bra size.
That Bachmann is considered to be a serious candidate is a sign of how uncommitted the GOP is to this election. No one wants to waste their war-chest on a run against Obama. She's an embarrassment (calling for anti-Americanism hearings on members of congress?!?).
Palin was what decided me AGAINST McCain. He had been my choice in 2k but his pandering decision to select Palin as the anti-Hillary convinced me that he had been bought and paid for by his party so he could get his turn. Had the Obama family had vandals and an unwed teen mother they never would have made it anywhere NEAR a national election.
The GOP could have picked some really smart, capable Republican women. Olympia Snow, Linda Lingle (gov HI 2002-10), Condoleezza Rice, etc. There were a lot of women who would've been better candidates. If these women were to run or had been picked for VP I may've voted differently. Unfortunately the GOP goes for those who most emphatically are NOT "...a woman who works hard to make it on her smarts..."
F&F! (Not just for that, but that was great!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod/michele-bachmann-is-not-a_b_892197.html
On the other hand, Bachmann has raced to be the first to sign a bigoted pledge authored by the Family Leader. The pledge is crafted in the meanest of spirits, and is hateful towards many groups, women included. Palin and Bachmann fan the flames of racial bigotry and intolerance as shills for the Tea Party, known for racist views, outlooks, and policies. Jesus certainly is not interested in empowering that, and does not dwell in that midst.
So in hearing consideration of these two as evangelicals and feminists, I am not interested in any intellectual gymnastics. My eyes, mind, heart, and spirit are not confused as to what they have presented day in, day out, month in, month out, year in, year out.
I would hope that authors, as well as Christians, would stop further warping of terms like feminist and evangelical to include women who could never be convicted of being Christians or knowing Christ.
Equality comes with responsibility. A professional career is admirable but to then still tell their daughters to submit to patriarchy. That's why men vote for them.
and (FYI) - SBA was not a bible-totin and quotin christian - she was loosely affiliated with the Unitarian church (not known to be conservative). She certainly did not think highly of Christianity or religion in general - "I was born a heretic. I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows."
All these "-isms" that we have created come from earthly philosophy, and not from the word of God, which is what *should* be at the center of our heart.
along with misuse of the suffix "phobia".
My hope is that one day we will finally see through the lies and deceit of this world to recognize the most beautiful and powerful truth of all, a truth hiding out in the open for countless centuries: there is no problem too large or small that love can not heal it with patience, time. It seems so simple, doesn't it? What is stopping us from bursting the ugly veil of illusion thrown over us? Is it not time for us to wake up? Is it not time for us to see? To see each other?
The lesson is one and is meant for both sexes: there is little understanding of who we really are, and what we are to one another or how we are to find the answer to this. Religion serves to clarify this while at times trailing off on a tangent relating only to cultural norms and biases of the day the particular scripture was written, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or otherwise. We are left then reading a book or books containing the "truth of God", wondering what parts are or are not true.
God is good. In my heart I know this. It is religion that confuses me. It is religion and religious adherents that unwittingly - I hope - taint the name of God with their own doctrines, such as slavery and subordination of the feminine, and violence as a legitimate answer to wrong-doing by another, etc., etc. These lies are abhorrent and are plagues on the human species -- much worse in some ways than either AIDS or cancer.
Putting the two words together is the creation of patriarchal men who are eager to use God to divert women's efforts for self-empowerment into a model that glorifies a society dominated by white anglo-saxon males.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't have to be..I am both evangelical and a feminist.
Certainly, one of the most basic goals of feminism is to give women the same access to economic and political power as men. And that is happening...slower than many of us would like, but happening nonetheless.
Inevitably, some of the women gaining power and influence are going to be very different from the liberal/radical women who first manned (womanned?) the barricades back in the day. Bachmann and Palin are two examples - and there will be plenty more.
These conservative women and their supporters will co-opt the feminist label, and there's no compelling reason why they should not. It's a shrewd political move, and in politics, anything goes as long as you can get away with it.
It really points to the fact that we're entering a post-feminist age, where people are making voting decisions irrespective of gender. That didn't work out real well for Hillary in 2008, but it's actually what feminists have wanted all along.
Some cynic might say, "Be careful what you wish for". But time marches on, and ideas get integrated into the social fabric and co-opted by all sorts of folks all the time.
That's just the way it goes. No use whining about it.
I'm thinking maybe the author of the article chose to ignore that part and move on to more interesting points. Kind of like picking-and-choosing passages from the bible. Just throw out that parts that make you uncomfortable, then proclaim that it's the "perfect word."
Great. More self-procliamed prophets and warriors for god hellbent on destroying anything and anyone non-Christian...