The truth is that feminisim is a very big tent – particularly third wave feminism. There are Marxist feminists and feminists who think he was sexist. (I think his theories were both flawed and brilliant.) Women of color have critiqued the white, middle-class emphasis of the second wave and NOW types. There are pro-porn and anti-porn feminists. There are womanists and mujeristas and I’ve even met a Yinist…

All of that is precisely why I call myself a feminist – particularly in more conservative Christian circles. If I don’t self-identify as a feminist, then that allows people to maintain their stereotypes of feminists and who we are. In my experience, those who have the most trouble with the label are those who adhere to a patriarchal interpretation of scripture, and we are going to disagree no matter what I call myself.

Great post, Julie.

Thanks for the thoughtful conversation.

I think a huge issue is how anger is dealt with by people who have been oppressed. Anger is a normal, healthy response in some situations, and can lead to positive action. Yet without grace and the gift of composting shit into fertile soil for new life, anger can become entrenched and lead to new forms of oppression or hurtful responses. It’s kind of like sorting through the reasons why Christians are persecuted: is it because of how radical Jesus is, or because we are being (perhaps unintentionally) obnoxious? I hope we are prepared to accept persecution if it is because of living out the call of God in Christ, but I don’t advocate feeling heroic over being disliked on account of our attitude.

Likewise, are people reacting to feminism because it is a truly unbalancing (yet balancing) idea that feels threatening, or because of attitudes held by women or groups of women who are in such pain that has become internalized into bitterness and aggression?

Seeking healing for our feminine wounds can lead the way for clarity about the issue of women being full, equal human beings entitled to be who they (we) are, and who God calls us to be!

karl – the label thing is an issue. But while people use other terms to describe themsevles as christians, they do not reject the term Christian altogether. It still hold meaning for them even if they know it hold negative connotations for others. most people I know would rather redeem the term than abandon it. That’s somewhat how I feel about feminist, although I do not think all of the hatred of that term is based only on the extremes of feminism.

One thing that still troubles me is her observation that “If I used the word “feminist” to mean something most people didn’t understand, I wasn’t communicating . . . My work depended on using tools precisely, and employing an esoteric, private definition for any word amounted to damaging my tools.”

You respond to this with the example of the baggage that comes with the word Christian, and that is helpful. But I see a lot of people who haven’t abandoned their convictions but have abandoned (or at least usually don’t use) that word in favor of terms like Christ-follower, or Follower of the Way of Christ, for exactly the same reason Frederica gives above. I think the term “Evangelical” is an even closer analogue to the term “Feminist” as far as being a loaded term that brings with it a lot of baggage and assumptions for neutral hearers re. my stance on a whole range of social and political issues. I do still call myself an evangelical at times, but only if pressed and when either (a) my hearer will understand what I mean or (b) I have a lot of time to explain. Usually I use some more neutral, non-loaded-with-baggage term. Otherwise, I’m employing a private, esoteric definition (albeit one I think is closer to what true evangelicalism is all about than the prevalent stereotypes) and failing to communicate.

The same seems to be true of feminism. Christian feminists are a small minority in the N.O.W. ranks, and there’s as much in the N.O.W. agenda and attitude that I reject as there was in Falwell’s. Sure, N.O.W. doesn’t speak for all feminists, but neither did Falwell speak for all evangelicals. So if I use a term that makes most of my non-insider hearers think “N.O.W. and all that organization stands for”, am I really communicating?

The Brian McLaren thing was hypothetical.