Yes, a religion and feminism question.

[deus_vobiscum]

I have to pose some questions to y'all. You don't have to be a theologian, a gender theorist or anything to respond. I really want your thoughts. Like my position on abortion, I haven't come to a firm and final conclusion. It would be helpful if you were Christian, but anything will be appreciated

Comments

[awonderland]

2. Are all forms of gender/sex essentialism harmful to women (and men and everyone else)?
- I don't think so. The tricky thing about sex I am realizing more and more is that it really exists. I think especially at Whitman we want to treat sex like race, i.e. as if it is only a social construct, but there are real solid differences grounded in Biology that do make women a certain way and men a certain way. Other than the "one can have babies" I would be loath to put my finger down on them, but I think they're there.

3. Is 3rd Wave feminism (and the work of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault) irrelevant for theology? Should we go forward with our gender binary and carve out exemptions to it for those who do not want to identify with male or female? Or do we have to forge an androgynous world a la Virginia Mollenkott? Or is there another option?I don't have a strong opinion on this, not being particularly Christian, but I feel like Christians do acknowledge conceptually that God is really not a man, God is God and we really can't

[deus_vobiscum]

2. I read a thealogian (spelling deliberate) last year who articulated a position she called "strategic essentialism." She argued that some forms of essentialism allowed women to embrace some things such as motherhood without being bound to them. I guess I was defending Elizabeth Johnson on similar grounds. To completely ignore biology seems odd, really; women have vaginas and other odd things, and men have penises. Until I can get a womb, I won't be a mother (unless some adopted child of mine starts calling me 'mom

[awonderland]

3. I think that use of only masculine pronouns doesn't have to, but I think it can. PLUS there are a lot of Christians out there that think it is the only way to refer to God. God only appears on earth as man is there general thinking. I think that definitely tends to exclude women. Obviously, if we're talking Catholic (or Lutheran, or Mormon or...) then it is more important that Women are ACTUALLY excluded from having the same sort of close relationship to God that men can have (as clergy, etc....)

5. Change is not inherently tied to progress. There may be unchangeable Truth, but we are unworthy to properly interpret it, so we need to constantly try to change our interpretation (i.e. The Bible does not say we can have slaves, the Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong, the Bible does not say men are allowed to beat their wives)

You always bring out the best in me Joe.

[deus_vobiscum]

1. Do you mean that some people would take female images to be essentialist while they are not intended in to be essentialist

[snefru]

if you want, you can call my aunt - i emailed her some questions, and she said she'd have to talk to you. she does have a masters in theology.