Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, conservative christianity, Dannah Gresh, modesty
Note: the student newspaper of Cedarville University (which has been shut down by the university since this letter was written) is called. Not The Cedars, but apparently this alumna did not know that.
Now for the letter, which was sent to Cedars’ editor, and not to me:
Is it coincidence that one of the nations most vocal opponents to immodesty hit the Cedarville campus the same day that Sarah Jones’ critique of Sanctify Ministries’ Modesty Panel, sensationally entitled “Immodesty and Misogyny,” hit The Cedars? I don’t believe in coincidence. I believe God ordains things. With that supposition, I couldn’t just turn a blind eye to what I saw in my alma maters newspaper on March 19, 2009.
Let’s start with where I do agree with the opinion piece. First, “modesty [does] go both ways.” Both men and women have a great responsibility to refrain from dressing like sex objects. Agreed. Second, there is never an excuse for a guy or a girl acting out on sexual thoughts regardless of how someone near them has dressed. We should “hold them responsible for their actions.” Agreed.
Ironically, these two points of agreement are actually where I begin voicing a concern with the Sarah. If she can make the statement that “modesty goes both ways,” why is it offensive that a women’s ministry led by women would invite women to an event to learn a little more about how they can do their part? Does modesty really go both ways? Either it does or it doesn’t. But you can’t say it does and then complain when women take responsibility for their part. Instead of applauding the attempt, it was compared to the “morality police [she’s] read about in Saudi Arabia and Iran.” Talk about sensationalizing an issue! Sounded like the atheists and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State who have sounded out against me as I speak out against immodesty in publications like USA TODAY, The Chicago Tribune and the Dallas/Fort Worth Star Telegram. They once called me “the Taliban!”
As far as stating that we should hold men who think sexual thoughts “responsible for their actions,” I agree. But in standing on this soap box, Sarah led those who did not attend the event to believe that the panel and event hosts blame women for the sexual thoughts of men. I did not attend the event, but I spoke with many who did. I understand that the men on the panel repeatedly stated their own responsibility for their thinking saying things like “We understand that this is still our problem” and “We are responsible.” One person told me they stated it “over and over.” There was no blame placed on women. Furthermore, I understand that even though only four men attended the event and that it was created for women, the panel and planners took time to discuss the kinds of clothing that men wear which causes temptation in women! This topic brought the male panel to a loss of words, so the mic was taken out into the crowd of women so they could clear the air about how guys need to be modest, too. Did you miss that part of the event, Sarah?
What I missed is how the word misogyny was used in the headline of this piece? Exactly where did that come into the picture? I’m not even sure where to add the thought that the headline seemed to be something set up to get people to divert their attention from the real issue of modesty to female hatred, which isn’t the issue at hand. (I think that’s called a straw man fallacy.) The issue at hand is modesty vs. immodesty.
Here are a few facts. In 2000, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, a group of OB/GYN’s committed to creating a medical cessation model to reduce teen sex listed the top five factors that place a teen (either male or female) at risk of sexual activity. One of those factors is “appears older than most.” How does a teen look older? By the way that they dress and present themselves. Of course, there are exceptions. Some students just look older, but in large part it is an issue of modesty. This factor has remained a indicator of risk since identified in 2000.
In 2007, the American Psychological Association released a task force report on the Sexualization of Girls. The findings of the two years of study state that music lyrics, Internet content, video games and clothing are now being marketed to younger and younger girls. The smutty content of the marketing is linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression, and early sexual activity. Ironically, this early sexualization presented to young girls has “negative consequences on girls’ ability to develop healthy sexuality.” The report stated that “it is of concern when girls at increasingly younger ages are invited to try on and wear clothes designed to highlight female sexuality. Wearing such clothing may make it more difficult for girls to see their own worth and value in any other way than sexually.” (Apa Report, pg 14) Immodesty is linked to some pretty sad stuff, Sarah, and there’s nothing wrong with creatively addressing it.
If right about now you’re applauding me for writing this, you might be surprised that I’ve not been writing to Sarah at all. I’ve been looking for you! I’ll make a drastic assumption that if you agree with me you probably don’t hold to a lot of the same ideals as Miss Jones. As far as I can tell from the three articles she wrote for the March 19 Cedars she is a left-wing Democrat feminist who is possibly a supporter of abortion (“Standing on the Promises of Change”) and sympathetic to homosexual “rights” (“Lyons Dulls The Ax”). I could be wrong, but her writing voice overall leads any reader to these assumptions. And that’s a problem for me. The Cedars represents Cedarville. And I know that Cedarville as a whole does not define a woman’s role the same way that Sarah does in these articles. There’s nothing wrong with having a woman with this voice writing for The Cedars. What’s wrong is that you have given her so much voice. The lack of voice from a Biblical woman (egalitarian or complementarian) is a sad commentary on you, not Sarah. Women of Cedarville, I love you. You know that I do, but if you cannot represent and defend true Biblical womanhood in The Cedars where you have the support of godly faculty and staff at an outstanding Christian university, how do you expect to wage the war in the public sector when you have to speak to entities the likes of The Wall Street Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer?
Ask the Lord what your role in re-shaping The Cedars might be. Ask him if you’ve been complacent in representing the Biblical view of womanhood in your own student paper. And then, obey him in whatever he calls you to do.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, conservative christianity, Dannah Gresh, modesty, patriarchy
This article probably won’t make much sense to the fortunate readers who do not attend Cedarville University. However, I believe that conservative Christianity’s obsession with female modesty is oppressive and therefore I’m reposting my article here. I will also post a response from Dannah Gresh, the conservative co-author of Lies Women Believe.
Here’s the article:
First, a disclaimer: I am not overly concerned with the issue of modesty. I do not get up in the morning and worry about the tightness of my jeans and T-shirts because I find tight clothing uncomfortable, and therefore I do not wear it. I do not see myself as temptation on two legs (it’s an objectifying concept, and after all I am a feminist). Yet according to the men of Sanctify Ministries’ Modesty Panel, that is exactly what I am: temptation.
I find the very idea of an all-male Modesty Panel offensive. To me, it reeks of the morality police I read about in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But in the interests of fairness and yes, curiosity, I gave the Modesty Panel a try. I submitted four questions for the men and attended the Panel’s meeting on March 12th to hear their answers.
Although my particular questions were not answered, I received great insight into the mind of the typical Cedarville male. Since I have a teenage brother and graduated from a public high school, much of what was said came as no shock. It was the ideology behind the women’s questions and the men’s answers that I found truly shocking.
I’m not sure what to call this ideology. It goes beyond simple sexism, since the men claim that they are trying to respect women. But it certainly contains elements of sexism. There is no other reason for a group of men to feel that they have the righteous authority to tell a group of women how to dress. Clothe the sexism in religion, and it becomes even more insidious.
“We’re not trying to tell you what to do,” was a phrase repeated many times throughout the Panel. But when a religious man tells an equally religious woman that if she wears a particular piece of clothing it will force him to envision her naked, that is as good as a command.
The questions ran the gamut of the female wardrobe. From skinny jeans to wedding dresses, no article of clothing was left undiscussed. And the men were more than happy to offer their candid opinions. “Don’t wear those pajama bottoms to Chucks, girls, because if you do that it makes boys think about bed, and that makes them think about sex.” “Be careful how you sit, because sitting a certain way makes you look easy.”
The responsibility of modest behavior was put completely on women. In a subculture that reveres male headship, this is ironic. We women are told that men are our divinely ordained leaders–just don’t expect them to control their thoughts around an errant bra strap.
I believe this double standard is best illustrated by the conversation I had shortly before the Panel began. A male student stated that relaxing the dress code to include jeans would encourage women to dress immodestly. “I shouldn’t have to look at that!” he complained. When I asked him why he was looking at women like that anyway, he stared at me and exclaimed “That’s just how we’re wired!”
That is a cop-out. It is the coward’s response to a personal problem that he is not willing to confront. Should we excuse the alcoholic because that’s how she’s wired? The pedophile and the murderer are not excused for their crimes because of some genetic predisposition. Any student of psychology can tell you that some criminals are predisposed to criminal behavior. But this is the bottom line: we still send those criminals to jail. We still hold them responsible for their actions.
Modesty goes both ways. Women have a responsibility to themselves and to their male peers to refrain from dressing like sex objects. However, even if a woman fails this responsibility, men have a responsibility to respect her as a human being. They do not have that duty simply because they are men, but because they are human beings and women are their equals. And if a man can’t look at a woman in pajamas without thinking about sex, the problem is probably not with the woman’s pajamas.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Christianity, conservative christianity, feminism, fundamentalist Christianity, religion, sexism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/gender.religion
In her article “I’m Not Praying” Cath Elliot makes the claim that religion is anti-feminist. “Christianity is and always has been antithetical to women’s freedom and equality, but it’s certainly not alone in this.” she writes. “It’s the patriarchy made manifest, male-dominated, set up by men to protect and perpetuate their power.”
Although Elliot does have a point–religion has been used to justify horrible human rights abuses that include the systematic oppression of women–her thesis is flawed. Religion is not inherently anti-feminist. Neither is Christianity. Individual Christians are often sexist, as are millions of people who may or may not be religious. The fact that the Christian God is portrayed as male doesn’t make Him sexist; if we want to be really theologically accurate, God is a Spirit and doesn’t even have a gender. He’s even ascribed female characteristics at certain points in the Bible.
There’s the problem of the Old Testament, of course. The Old Testament appears contradictory in its treatment of women, first treating them as property but also featuring strong women like Mariam, Deborah and Jael. The two books named for women are in the Old Testament, and both feature women who blatantly used their sexual power to achieve their own ends. These women are still celebrated by Christians, although the fact that Ruth “lay down” with Boaz and that Esther was a concubine are usually ignored.
I think it is Christianity’s traditional attitude toward women that feeds Elliot’s perception. My personal experience has been similar to hers. Most conservative Christians I know are sexist at least on some level. Some are more vocal than others. Worst of all, the women of this movement allow themselves to be oppressed. They are taught the lie that a woman’s place is at home, that she cannot preach or teach men, and that her main function is to be a subservient breeding machine for the head of the household. This is propaganda on the scale of Orwell’s Doublespeak, only this time the Party’s slogan (“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength”) is lauded as Biblical truth.
Christian women have taken gradual steps toward gender equality. The United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church of America, and certain Presbyterian and Anglican congregations permit female ministers. These churches recognize the inherent equality of women with men. But most denominations still forbid female leadership. The Southern Baptist Convention (with whom Cedarville is affiliated) recently reaffirmed its adherence to traditonal male headship. This creates a poisonous environment for women, and adds to the unflattering perception that people like Cath Elliot have of Christianity.
As long as women believe the conflicting idea that although they are of equal worth to men they are to be submissive to them, Christianity will be used as a tool to oppress and domineer females. Those of us who don’t swallow that lie need to take a stand. We need to reject the false dichotomy projected by Christian patriarchy. Until then, Cath Elliot’s point stands largely unchallenged.
Filed under: Christianity | Tags: Baptists, Christianity, conservative christianity, jack chick, religion
My friend Erin posted a link on her blog to a new tract by Jack Chick. For those of you haven’t heard about Mr. Chick, he is a master of the scare-’em-till-they’re-saved art form. This is a link to his biography: http://www.chick.com/information/authors/chick.asp
I’d never read his bio before. I’ve seen his tracts, of course; he posts them online and sometimes I just need a good laugh. But I read the bio tonight, and it was more sad than amusing. He didn’t like teenagers because they were rebellious. Now, I am a teenager. My idea of rebellion is confined to voting Democrat and laughing at Southern Baptists. Does that mean my soul isn’t good enough for Mr. Chick? Apparently it wasn’t, but Jesus (aka JEE-ZUS!) changed his heart. Now we are all treated to Chick Lit. Here’s an example of his latest tract: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1044/1044_01.asp?wpc=1044_01.asp&wpp=b. It’s about the end times, the favorite subject of red-faced revivalists everywhere. I don’t like reading about the end times. First of all, he and his cronies are basing their interepretation of the end times on a book that is completely metaphorical. Wormwood? The Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse? Come on. Are we Christians or are we pimply-faced adolescent boys? It makes no sense to base one’s beliefs on a book that reads like Stephen King on acid. The gore and shock factor of Revelations attracts nuts like Chick, and scares the hell out of his victims. Don’t even get me started on the portrayal of Muslims in that tract. It makes me sick. Why blame the Muslims for everything? The history of Christianity is just as bloody as the history of Islam. We’re our own worst enemies, in case you haven’t noticed.
His ‘Statement of Faith’ is equally nauseating. King James groupie? Check. Faith over good works? Check check. Who cares if you help the poor or befriend those nasty teenagers? You’ve said The Magic Words, so you’re good. The rest of his tracts are just as bad. Catholics Are Teh Evilz? Check. Jesus as Gringo? Check. However, I must say that the ones concerning The End Times are the worst. It stuns me to think that people like Chick read so much into the Bible. They’re preaching things that aren’t even there, and then they turn around and point the finger at Catholics and other faiths for doing the exact same thing. This isn’t Christianity. It’s paranoia. It’s hysteria. It’s just sick.
