The Hyphen House

I don't know how I missed this great book idea/experiment by Rachel Held Evans, but it's fascinating. She's taking a year to live the "10 Commandments of Biblical Womanhood" literally... not cutting her hair, keeping her home, etc. I'll be following the Womanhood Project closely now! As an egalitarian, I'm quite interested to see what she finds through this journey.

One thing she's exploring is domesticity. I want to capitalize on this aspect because there seems to be an assumption that feminist/egalitarian women don't know how to cook, have perpetually messy houses (or spotless ones that other people clean), and turn their noses up at crafts and household projects. That, or they have "un-manly" husbands who just do all the housework.

I'll admit, I gave myself the moniker "domestically challenged" throughout much of my teenage and college years. On the rare occasion I attempted cooking, there were mishaps (in case you are wondering, you cannot substitute water for oil in a cake). I started and abandoned many crafting projects. And I certainly did not volunteer for kitchen work at church events (do you boys need a hand carrying those chairs?).

Much of this was self-imposed. Did I know how to cook? Yes, and I made more meals than most of my college friends, experimenting with recipes on my roommates. Was I capable of crafting? I've got 15 years of scrapbooks to verify that yes I was. Did I do housework? I could sure tidy up quickly, and do mountains of laundry at once.

But somehow that domestic stuff felt weak to me. Like I couldn't be good at it and also pursue a career. Or I couldn't broadcast it because it would look like I was husband-hunting for the kind of guy who wanted a stay-at-home wife/mom.

When I finally decided that cooking, cleaning, and crafting could actually be acts of independence, and I didn't have to do them b/c of cultural expectations but because I wanted to, my outlook changed quite a bit. And when Eric and I got married and moved in together, dividing chores, learning to cook challenging things together, and using crafts as a way to pursue creativity in my own space felt really empowering.

Sometimes when I talk about doing Eric's laundry, or when I clear the dishes after hosting dinner, or when I mention my love of scrapbooking and making things out of found objects, people raise their eyebrows at me. As if any domestic act interferes with my empowered, egalitarian persona. At this point it's all part and parcel. I'm just a woman taking care of myself and my home. When I was single, this was important. And in marriage, having a partner to help makes it no less important.

How about I cook you dinner, serve it to you at a table I've dressed, and we can talk about men, women, and domesticity? Don't worry, dessert will be pre-made.

Mark Driscoll is pastor of a big church, famous for saying things like Jesus wasn't wimpy, it's only worth serving a God who can kick some ass, and men should just be men and fight each other in cages. I'm paraphrasing (although not much), but he's said lots of things that get my blood boiling and make me want to scream. How do I react?

The trouble with statements like those Driscoll makes are that they are meant to get people riled up. They are meant to make people write angry comments on his articles or make people chant "hell yeah!" in favor of machismo ruling in God's name.

I have been challenged of late to reach out to brothers and sisters in an effort to understand views that are different than mine. If I stumble on a blog or run into someone from my past who believes very differently than I do about gender, equality, and the Bible's teachings on each, I want to see why they believe what they do rather than engage a heated argument. Usually that involves taking several deep breaths, some prayer, and some reminders from my husband that God defines us--not Christian fads that are simply reinventions of patriarchal dominance in a hip, trendy package--before I can proceed.

As one friend, from whom I hold diametrically opposing views on women and submission, put it, "It is not for us to convince each other; that is the Spirit's work." I can spout off Scripture and science and behavioral studies and cultural critiques all day long, but I have to trust the Spirit to work for the liberation of His people first and foremost.

Don't get me wrong, I do think there is a time and place to channel righteous anger into articulating a heartfelt response to such assaults on women and men as posed by Driscoll. But my struggle right now is to pursue peace, and I believe part of pursuing peace is pursuing understanding, even when I can't for the life of me understand why someone could say "fat lazy men" (read: not athletic or violent) are the root cause of all the problems in the world.

But then I start to understand. I read this interview on Relevant Magazine a few months ago with Mark Driscoll, in which he was asked if he regretted any of his statements. He responded:

If I could hit control-alt-delete and go back and do like they used to in Men in Black and just hit a button to make certain people forget certain things, that would be awesome. My hope, my prayer, my goal is to do better, by God’s grace, to learn, to grow, to be sanctified and mature—to be less shock-jock and more Jesus-centered. I’m turning 40 this fall, so I can’t get away with, “Oh, he’s young.” I’ve got five kids, I’m not young anymore, I’m a tired old man. But I’m hoping God gives me enough years, maybe 30, 40 more years of service, that when it’s all said and done, I will have had enough time to correct some mistakes I’ve made and learn how to more clearly articulate some things I believe. So I’m trying to learn as I go.

The bottom line is, I generally conclude that people like Driscoll are deeply hurting. That does not explain away his statements or his approaches. But enforcement of this sort of hyper-masculinity often covers up severe struggle with gender identity. (I would argue gender identity is a struggle for all, but that's another post.) I would also assume, given some of what I've read by him, that he has a heart for female abuse victims and in an effort to curb domestic violence and protect women, he has a scarily reactionary approach. 

So right now I pray for peace, pray that God would soften Driscoll's heart and use his pastoral position to truly minister to people he wants to help. And I pray that our lives are examples of how men and women following God instead of trying to be cage fighters and protected creatures can be an answer to all the things he's afraid of.

I'm writing this post as part of the Breastfeeding Blog Carnival hosted by The Leaky B@@b. It's World Breastfeeding Week and the carnival theme is "Perspectives: Breastfeeding from Every Angle." So as a feminist with no plans for children in the near future, here's my perspective.

"How many of you are uncomfortable around a woman breastfeeding in public?" I asked my Intro. to Women's Studies class. Over half raised their hands.

"How many of you are uncomfortable around a woman in a bikini?" Only a few hands.

"Well, get over yourselves and let the woman feed her child," I told them, in my signature professorial tone.

The thing is, so long as women are in a situation where they can be sexualized, and they meet certain cultural expectations of beauty (i.e. they are skinny enough to look "good" in a bikini... which is ridiculous in my book, b/c I'm a size 12 and think I look great in a swimsuit, but I digress), we can accept it. Expose cleavage in a plunging neckline and it's great b/c people have the opportunity to ogle. But expose a little breast during nursing and people get grossed out, uncomfortable, or just plain weird.

Historically speaking, women have, of course, always breastfed. In the U.S. in the mid-1900s with the rise of child psychologists and baby boomer moms being encouraged to stay in the domestic sphere, formula was the only way to go. This was the age when women were told how to be mothers by male psychologists and taught to use technology for all their domestic duties by men. Breastfeeding was considered unhealthy and would cause psychological problems for the baby. By the time I was born in 1980 "breast is best" became popular again and women were fighting to explain to their mothers why they wanted to nurse, not feed their newborn with a bottle as they had been as infants. In other words, it's a cyclical debate.

The "Mommy Wars" that pit stay-at-home moms against professional moms extends to breastfeeding as well. People are pretty judgmental about those who don't do what they do/would do in general and nursing is no exception. I always want to say, "do you know that woman's story?" There's probably a good reason why she made the decision she did about it, so lay off.

I do feel that encouraging women to go into hiding to nurse, or to unreasonably cover-up is a way to push women into isolation. If a mother is most comfortable that way and/or enjoys the time alone with her baby, then ok. But pushing her to stay home or giving her looks that make her retreat to a back bedroom is uncalled for. She's more than a milk machine, she's a person with a full life who is most likely struggling to integrate herself and her baby into the world. So cheers to those who don't let themselves be pushed back.

I was fortunate to work in an office that encouraged work/life balance and extolled motherhood so I've seen firsthand how breastfeeding can work for professional women. I got used to breast pumps lying around the office and not being weird about knowing where to look when I talked to a colleague who was pumping. We also offered our office as a lactation room, so women on campus could come by and have some privacy and a sympathetic space to pump.

All that said, I confess I tire of women who act as though breastfeeding is the most important act on the planet. Just b/c I don't have a baby to feed at my breast doesn't make my life insignificant. I am most comfortable around women who proceed with it as though it's a natural, normal thing.

People much smarter than me have written on this topic from a feminist perspective. Here's just a few:

* An article at ProMoM, Inc. that argues "breastfeeding empowers women and contributes to gender equality." Hear, hear!
* "Judy Hopkinson: Passion to end world hunger becomes commitment to breastfeeding moms, infants"
* The National Organization of Women's "Open Letter to the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary"

Last night, we saw the new Nick Hornby movie An Education, starring newcomer Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina, Rosamund Pike, and Emma Thompson. It is a departure from Hornby's other screenplays, like About a Boy and High Fidelity because this films focuses on a young woman coming of age too quickly rather than men experiencing delayed adolescence. First off, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The acting was superb across the board. Probably my favorite performance was Rosamund Pike who plays the "dumb blonde" with such subtle complexity.

The movie takes place in suburban London during the early 6os and follows 16-year-old Jenny (Mulligan) as she tries to finish high school (at an all-girls college prep school of course) and earn her acceptance into Oxford to study English. Her plans are derailed when she meets and falls in love with David (Sarsgaard), a charming 35-year-old man, whose sophistication, wealth, and status allure Jenny much more than her fruitless Latin studies. David introduces Jenny to hip jazz clubs, fancy cigarette brands, art auctions, and even Paris. She feels free from the expectations and limitations of her parents, her school, and her pre-women's-lib culture. As her education in the "school of life" begins to overshadow her traditional education, Jenny begins to become increasingly lost in the adult world, disdaining the childhood world of her peers and family. I won't give away anything else, but the themes are certainly very interesting to me given my own egalitarian leanings and my current job teaching 16-year-olds at a college prep school.

At one point in the movie, the school's headmistress (Thompson) basically tells Jenny that even though school is boring, she needs to get an education. Jenny responds by questioning why. Why should she be bored now just to get an education that will only allow her to become a teacher or service worker, boring jobs to her. Is she just supposed to be bored forever? This moment in the movie really struck me profoundly. As someone who teaches girls that are often bored with school, it seems a legitimate question. What is the point? Unfortunately because the headmistress has not really experienced life outside of her "bored" existence, she cannot really come up with a satisfying answer for Jenny. It isn't until Jenny sees that perhaps she has misjudged her English teacher (who she believes is living a "dead" life), that she comes to understand the value of an education.

In some ways, the movie's conclusion is too simple. We learn that the best things in life do not come easily or quickly without serious compromises, that we should be satisfied that we can have what we want if we work hard and have patience. But I am left wondering how an adult can really adequately communicate that to a 16-year-old girl who feels devalued, bored, and inspired only by glamour and young love. Jenny reminds me of so many of my own students, whose situations are certainly better now in the new millenium than the early 60s, but who also struggle to see the relevance of Jane Eyre to their lives (a book Jenny and my students both study). They are often bored and only find enjoyment in their boyfriends, in popular culture, and in the romantic worlds in their dreams. Why would they believe me when I tell them that an education is the only way they can get what they want in life? There is still a glass ceiling, still people who think a woman is at her best when taken care of by a man, still people who live exciting lives by compromising their moral values and taking the easy way. These forces still assault the value of an education in the eyes of a naive 16-year-old girl, especially the smart ones like Jenny.

If there is something about the movie that disturbs me, it is the fact that Jenny doesn't realize this until she has made many mistakes she regrets. I suppose the "school of life" really does teach us the most profound lessons, but as a teacher, I hope that I can prevent my students from making bad choices. In that sense, I become too similar to Jenny's overbearing father (Molina) who worries only about her future and has no sense of who she is in the present, nor her dreams and desires. Perhaps my students must make mistakes in order to see the value of a life well lived, the value of a strong education, and the value of their childhood innocence too.

Anyway, I highly recommend An Education, especially for high school teachers like myself. It has given me much to consider. I hope that if a student asks me, "What's the point? Am I just supposed to be bored for the rest of my life?" that I can answer her more honestly and effectively than Jenny's advisors.

In the women's studies course I teach, we've been talking about body image, media representation, and other related issues. One article we discussed brought attention to how we view the body as parts, not as a whole. I've been pondering this idea, because I think when we don't like something about our body, we fixate on the negative "parts." Then the whole becomes negative. "My hips are too big" really means I don't think my whole body is proportionate. Our perception of our body comes from our comparison of our own bodies to images or representations of other bodies. It's not a true examination of our holistic body.

Some magazines lately have done some interesting things to talk about the body. I applaud the efforts, but sometimes I think they fall flat and occasionally might actually be harmful. (Be forewarned: I've linked the following examples on the bolded words, but some of them are nude photographs of women. They are covered, but nude.) Serena Williams says she's insecure about her curves so she poses nude for the cover of ESPN Magazine's "body" issue this month. Glamour gets some good comments on an "au naturael" photo of a woman sitting au naturale with a belly and a smile on her face, so they do an official shoot of some of their "fuller figured" models and run a supporting article. The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty sponsors a movie called The Women featuring a cast who isn't super-skinny, but thinner than average.

Feminist critics, politically and religiously conservative commentators, and other folks have a lot to say about women being nude subjects of photography. The nature of photographs meant for consumption in magazines really is a whole topic in and of itself. I think the photographers and subjects meant well, I really do. And I draw some encouragement from their attempts.

However, there are some (perhaps unintended) messages getting through here. First, be confident about those curves as long as you aren't fat. Sure, a size 8 is ok. But beyond that you don't look sexy naked. If these women are "plus-size" then what about women who are overweight? Second, "natural" confidence can only be exuded when you are in a professional studio, your picture taken by an artist, and your make-up and hair done with expensive products. And it would help if you're a model. I don't see someone's no make-up, candid backyard photograph, taken by a friend, appearing in these mags as features on "real" women's bodies. And third, the way to express your confidence in your body is to pose nude. In many ways I think it would be better to show women in clothes that hug a stomach that's not perfectly toned or ill-fitting jeans or something. Naked models complicate our gaze because it's always going to be voyeuristic in some way, even if we're meant to sincerely appreciate the female form.

The whole body, then, is an account of our interior and external struggles and triumphs. There are ways to hate it and love it (sometimes simultaneously) in constructive ways. And I'm glad to see that some people in the fashion industry are at least trying to show us that.

Yes, I still like cartoon movies on occasion. I never miss a Pixar flick and Dreamworks usually aren't bad. Eric got a surprise day off work due to some crazy flash floods in Houston, so I took a half day and we went to the movies. Monsters v. Aliens offers a female alt-hero that we got excited about, teaching kids (ok, and adults) about the importance of individual destiny.

The movie begins on Susan's wedding day, as she converses with her groom before the ceremony about his news career. She seems happy to be subsumed into his job and pretends not to care he's canceled their honeymoon for a job interview. Enter giant meteor that turns her into a giant monster and lands her in a maximum security government Area 51. When an alien robot threatens San Francisco, the feds agree to let the monsters out, and they save the city. Susan gets to see Derek, her fiance, who tells her he can't live in her shadow and finds her new success and fame quite annoying. After everyone falls in love with her, mostly because she saves the earth, Derek tries to win her back, hoping an interview with her will land him a job in NY. She tells him to take a hike, revels in her new found gifts, and embraces her destiny with new friends.

I'm glad to see these heroines have grown a little depth. I remember some pseudo-feminist characters in Disney movies like Beauty and the Beast or Little Mermaid, but when you get right down to it they are all just doing whatever they can to get a man (or doing great things until they get a man). Even Mulan has to pretend to be a man to get anywhere in life, and the movie ends with her suitor staying for dinner (FYI the original Chinese story ends with her getting married and staying home). The underlying message is always no matter how extraordinary or independent you are, you need a man.

You all know I'm pro at-home moms, but I have an issue with the way most people talk about them. It's as if being a full-time mom is merely a support role to the husband. I believe moms who choose this life are fulfilling an individual calling and participating in the shared destiny of parenting. I guess that's really a separate rant, but suffice it to say little ones need some heroes that stick up for themselves and break societal norms when they are oppressive. The damsel in distress model doesn't help anyone, including and perhaps especially men. So, good for Reese Witherspoon for lending her vocal talents to Susan, the unlikely feminist super-monster.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 3, 2009
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

With passion and courage, women have taught us that when we band together to advocate for our highest ideals, we can advance our common well-being and strengthen the fabric of our Nation. Each year during Women's History Month, we remember and celebrate women from all walks of life who have shaped this great Nation. This year, in accordance with the theme, "Women Taking the Lead to Save our Planet," we pay particular tribute to the efforts of women in preserving and protecting the environment for present and future generations.

Ellen Swallow Richards is known to have been the first woman in the United States to be accepted at a scientific school. She graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1873 and went on to become a prominent chemist. In 1887, she conducted a survey of water quality in Massachusetts. This study, the first of its kind in America, led to the Nation's first state water-quality standards.

Women have also taken the lead throughout our history in preserving our natural environment. In 1900, Maria Sanford led the Minnesota Federation of Women's Groups in their efforts to protect forestland near the Mississippi River, which eventually became the Chippewa National Forest, the first Congressionally mandated national forest. Marjory Stoneman Douglas dedicated her life to protecting and restoring the Florida Everglades. Her book, The Everglades: Rivers of Grass, published in 1947, led to the preservation of the Everglades as a National Park. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993.

Rachel Carson brought even greater attention to the environment by exposing the dangers of certain pesticides to the environment and to human health. Her landmark 1962 book, Silent Spring, was fiercely criticized for its unconventional perspective. As early as 1963, however, President Kennedy acknowledged its importance and appointed a panel to investigate the book's findings. Silent Spring has emerged as a seminal work in environmental studies. Carson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1980.

Grace Thorpe, another leading environmental advocate, also connected environmental protection with human well-being by emphasizing the vulnerability of certain populations to environmental hazards. In 1992, she launched a successful campaign to organize Native Americans t o oppose the storage of nuclear waste on their reservations, which she said contradicted Native American principles of stewardship of the earth. She also proposed that America invest in alternative energy sources such as hydroelectricity, solar power, and wind power.
These women helped protect our environment and our people while challenging the status quo and breaking social barriers. Their achievements inspired generations of American women and men not only to save our planet, but also to overcome obstacles and pursue their interests and talents. They join a long and proud history of American women leaders, and this month we honor the contributions of all women to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2009 as Women's History Month. I call upon all our citizens to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that honor the history, accomplishments, and contributions of American women.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA