Wednesday, March 29, 2006

God and the Feminine

Today at work, The Huguenot was in rare form. Normally, I'm able to ignore him and do my work, but today he wanted to share his "unique" brand of evangelical conservative christianity. He sees that the church is troubled, and that the trouble is based on what he sees as the "feminization" of the church.

This isn't about the emergence of iconography in the Protestant sects. It isn't about the return of saints of the church to Protestant culture. It isn't even about the "Mary movement" or the exploration of Mary's role in the Nativity. What he's upset about is his perception of the "touchy-feely" turn of hymns, sermons, and church culture. To combat this, he wants more of an emphasis on what he perceives as the masculine: self-sacrifice, pain, and giving of the self for others.

First, he assumes that the church has become feminized. I don't see that as being true. The church as a whole still functions in a male role, meting out rules and regulations. Christianity is still male-structured, especially in comparison to Eastern religions with their focus on how members can help each other and help the community. Second, he assumes that a feminization of religion is a bad thing. For me and for many other women, the lack of the feminine in Christianity was a big stumbling block. Only with the introduction of the saints and the return to the ungendered God could we truly understand the divine.

And what could be more feminine than self-sacrifice, pain, and giving of the self for others? Is that not the definition of the feminine? What could be more self-sacrificing than mothering? More painful than childbirth? More dangerous than labor? I know that as feminists, we want to deny the traditional role of women because, historically, it has been exploitative and dangerous. Childbirth is beautifully self-sacrificing when it is entered into freely, but often it is a decision that is either forced upon a woman or is something that just "happens" to her. Caregiving skills can be exploited, especially with lower income and minority women. Nurturing capabilities can be used as an excuse to prohibit women from obtaining leadership positions, because we are obviously not "tough enough" to make the difficult decisions. Putting that all aside, the dual problems in both arenas (feminist and non-feminist) is that the traditionally gendered female is devalued. We as women are so focused on being "the same" as men that we forget that it is difference that makes us valuable. This is not to say that all women are giving and nurturing, or even want to give birth, or that all men are not self-sacrificing or giving. In fact, that is the problem--this dichotomy of either/or, male/female, giving/selfish, caring/cutthroat. Things are never that easy, but we often fool ourselves into believing that they are because it makes classification easier.

And limiting the holy to either masculine or feminine is a mistake. God is bigger than that, wider and more capable. At the same time, forgetting that there is so much both feminine and masculine about the divine ignores the believers who need all those qualities to worship and live fully. Whether it's at a certain time in the life course that one might need a more feminine than masculine god (or vice-versa) or whether it's that a feminine divine speaks more clearly to you in general, this cyclical gendering of the divine is as over-simplified as it is dangerous.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Rant: Sen. Bill Napoli

Called to my attention by Fe:

The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the "life" clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for "convenience," but he told "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" about how he thinks a "real-life example" of the exception could be invoked:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
(from an article by Molly Sims)

---

There are so many problems with the statements made by Sen. Napoli I'm almost not sure where to begin. But I'll do my best:

Sen. Napoli is operating under the common misconception (no pun intended) that abortions are a routine procedure. The most recent abortion rates are at 21.3 per 1000 women ages 15 to 44 in the US. (Statistic from Popular Reference Bureau)

He also has the mistaken opinion that abortion is routinely used as contraception. That's simply not true.

Part of the problem is the image that is brought up when people think of a woman who has had an abortion. The popular image is the single 20-something, irresponsible and indiscriminate in her choices of sexual partners. In reality, the average woman seeking an abortion is most likely to be married and already has at least one child. Her decision is an economic one, more often than not, and occasionally also a safety one. She may be involved in an abusive relationship, and while she feels powerless to get out of it, she knows she has the ability to keep another innocent person out of it.

He believes that all it takes to stop women from getting abortions is to make abortion illegal. The fact is, if a woman wants to get an abortion, she will get one, regardless of its legal status. The only difference will be whether she will come out of it safe, healthy and alive.
Regarding his description of the "perfect abortion candidate" (my words, not his):
Rape is a bodily violation. It has nothing to do with gender, sexuality, sexual activity, religious belief, or age.

Rape is a violation in and of itself. One does not need to be "brutally sodomized." Often serial rapists will comfort their victims after or even during the rape. This is part of the victimization. To say that a woman has to be beaten in order for non-consensual sex to be called rape is continuing her victimization. (There are Rape Victim statues that protect women from having their previous sexual history or physical appearance at the time of the rape brought up in court, as well as statutes that make certain the rape accusations do not hinge on evidence of physical violence.)

For me, at least, being raped does not take away your "virginity." Becoming sexually active is a choice, and rape takes away that choice. You can still make the decision to engage in consensual sex and have that be the "first time."

As I've aged, I've come to the realization that most, if not all, things are more complicated than some would have you believe. I was staunchly pro-choice all through college. A grey area began to develop when I was told that I may never be able to give birth because of physical issues, so for me, it's somewhat of a melancholy decision. However...because of what I know, I will continue to support the rights of women to safe, accessible abortions.