Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!uci-ics!gateway
From: mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism in the Craft
Message-ID: <8911220509.AA29699@mimsy.UMD.EDU>
Date: 22 Nov 89 21:28:35 GMT
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 94
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

Various people answered the question I posed in more or less the way I
expected: they pointed to the three big semetic religions as
offenders.  Now, I will not make any attempt to speak to or for Islam.
Some of what I say probably can be mapped to Judaism, but again: as a
gentile, I do not feel I can speak for Jews either.

Those who follow the religion groups know that I am Christian,
episcopalian by denomination.  I will speak for my own religion.  Let
me say right off the bat that christendom deserves almost all of the
criticism leveled at it for the way women have been abused in Jesus'
name.  Even the bible itself condemns it.  Men have been wont to read
Paul as saying "Wives, be submissive to your husbands" without
continuing on to the next verse.  The abuse directed at women by the
church fathers is a great evil indeed.

But saying that christianity tells men that "they're wonderful" is,
uh, dubious.  Even where christendom has placed men over women, I
don't think it is fair to read this as glorifying maleness.
Historically, christianity after the middle ages has been a religion
of women rather than of men.  Excepting certain flavors of "muscular"
american protestant, christianity has tended to denegrate traditional
male "virtues"; strong religion is reviled as "sissy".  Christianity
among males is weakest precisely where Macho looms large.  This
disproportion alone should lead us to question how much this supposed
elevation of males really matters in the end.

That said, I would like to drift over into this question of
god-language.  Several people have expressed opinions which I would
characterize as saying, in essence, that we should tailor our
god-language to have to say what we want affirmed aobut our
world-view.  Now, we have several points here when we come to
christianity.  As far as the three Persons are concerned, Jesus is
definitely a male, the Father is referred to in heavily "male"
imagery, and the Spirit is referred to in the neuter, but with a lot
of "female" imagery.  The traditional imagery tends to exaggerate this
and to keep the Spirit very neuter by consistent use of neuter
symbols-- the dove, fire, wind, etc.  Now to some extent this is all
phony, in that it IS human language, and that it is not generally
clear what all the gender language is doing.  At the same time, the
imagery we have is the imagery we have.  Presumably, there is the
strong posibility of there being a good reason for the state of the
imagery.

But God is not man-- except when he is Jesus.  What Paul has to say
has almost nothing to do with God language.  Paul could say "She" on
every page without ever affecting his statements about christian
behavior.  And conversely, what the priest or bishop does has little
to do with God language.  One thing that has continually bothered me
is that, in the Episcopal Church, we have been slow to develop a
female model of priesting.  Female priests tend to act like male
priests whose cassocks fit differently.  There is obvious value in
maternally-centered models of pastoral care, but they seem slow in
coming.

On the other hand, we seem to have this weird problem with accepting
what may be.  It may well be that there is a very strong reason for
the genders used in the traditional god-language.  The question which
then has to be confronted is, So What?  I hardly see this as spelling
the death knoll of feminism.  Likewise, I see problems with the
expression that women really-o truly-o are "equal" to men.  Well,
suppose they aren't?  I don't see that as grounds for discrimination.
If fewer women than men are suited to directing a large development
project, it remains true that these women are more capable at this
task than the vast majority of men.  However, if women continue to
claim otherwise, the potential exists for a strong backlash.  It seems
clear to me that equitable treatment for women is demanded regardless
of how different the average man and woman are.

I should also point out the christian charity would seem to be at odds
with some pretty common attitudes among feminists.  While I disagree
strongly with the conservative element of my church, the fact remains
that the most liberal elements of the church have dealt with their
opponents rather insensitively and self-righteously.  Certain american
bishops on the feminist side have said things about their opponents on
the order of "we don't care if you don't like it; we're going to shove
it down your throats anyway."  Obviously this doesn't win them
friends, and it serves to reinforce the resolve of the traditionalists
to defend their positions.  Several compromises have been made in
order to accomodate the traditionalists while at the same time
allowing matters to progress along the road of greater opportunity and
freedom for ordained women.  But these compromises have largely failed
in execution due to the intransigence of various powerful liberals,
notably several bishops.  The image painted by their actions is that
ordained women are being pushed on the church by a bunch of
self-righteous bishops and theologians.  It is a false image, but it
has brought on a lot of needless ill-will.  Great moral crusades offer
great opportunities for meanness, and feminism has thus far proven to
be no exception.

-- 
C. Wingate         + "Our God, to whom we turn When weary with illusion,
                   +  Whose stars serenely burn Above this earth's confusion,
mangoe@cs.umd.edu  +  Thine is the mighty plan, The steadfast order sure
mimsy!mangoe       +  In which the world began, Endures, and shall endure."