Encounters with Sexism
Every now and then I get that slap in the face reminder that sexism is alive and thriving in our world. Sometimes it can be easy to think otherwise. I attend a church that affirms my value as a woman, I have intelligent friends, I participate in emerging church forums, and I live in a progressive town. So in my day to day life I can pretend that most of the world actually thinks I’m human. And many of the people I know are uncomfortable taking a stand for women mostly because they don’t see any apparent problems. Then come the wake up calls.
I started the week at a women’s book discussion at my church where we are reading through Sue Monk Kidd’s Dance of the Dissident Daughter. I love that story of one woman’s awakening, and it served as a significant part of my journey in affirming my worth as a woman. Our discussion this week focused on how language is still often used to demean women. When the worst insults in our culture are to call someone a girl, when women are still pressured to have sons, and apologize for birthing daughters, when in business meetings women are ignored, or forced to be and dress like men in order to compete – sexism is alive and well. The constant blows at who we are surround us, and we all lamented that when we point out this stuff we are dismissed as angry bitches. That whole discussion was reflective and theoretical, but then I went out this week and saw it all in play.
A couple weeks ago I signed a letter to the Presidential Selection Committee for my alma mater Wheaton College encouraging them to consider female and minority candidates for the next President of Wheaton. Dr. Duane Litfin is retiring after 17 years of leading the college with an ultra-conservative hand. He was selected to steer the college away from a perceived “liberal” turn in the 1980s. So he brought his dispensational, cessationist, anti-ecumenical and anti-egalitarian views to the college. My former pastor, a friend of his, told me as I headed off to college that Litfin’s greatest fear for the college was the growing amount of women entering the biblical studies field. And while I was there, great efforts were taken to promote “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and silence the students for biblical equality groups. But now as he is leaving, there is a chance for the college to break those chains and take a stand for women. Yet even proposing that option has met with disdain. Responses to the mere suggestion of considering a woman or minority include - “You have got to be kidding me. Only in academia and government are such bogus voices funded and stroked. I feel specifically called to buy something with a pink ribbon emblem and then go wretch.” and “This is silliness. And it’s a classic example of what happens when people ignore the Pendulum of Truth” and “I do not think, however, that they should be set on finding a female or minority president. It is very likely that in doing that, they may end up with someone that will lead the school in a very dangerous direction.” Along with numerous assertions that the college should hire the most-qualified candidate, implying that a woman or a minority would not fit that bill. Sexism is alive and well.
Then here in Austin a couple of weeks ago, the DJ’s of my favorite morning radio show were suspended for using offensive language. The British radio host had used a phrase that sounded like a racial slur, and they laughed about the awkwardness of what her phrase sounded like. They were suspended without pay for a couple of weeks and forced to take cultural sensitivity classes. Since returning they have been very careful not to really say anything about other races, even stopping themselves in the middle of stories. But the use of women as insults has continued in full force. They constantly compare people to girls to show how weak and pathetic they are. They use references to women’s anatomy to insult people – especially the ever-popular term “douchebag.” Lesson learned – we have to be sensitive to other races but women are scum to be used however we like.
Similar lesson from this whole recent controvery about the Deadly Viper book. In the promo for the book about men’s intigrity published by Zondervan, the authors made use of Asian cultural references in really inappropriate and insensitive ways. It was obviously offensive, and a number of us in the Christian community pointed out that offense and asked for an apology. I fully affirm that an apology was needed to my Asian brothers and sisters, and the Christian community in general. At the same time, I was disturbed that many of the people calling for an apology were saying stuff like “I think the content of the book is great, I just have problems with the culturally insensitive packaging.” I think they were saying that to be nice and build bridges, but in all truth the curriculum is full of sexist stereotypes that use women as insults. The authors even have a video on their website promoting their Mancave series that is simply a series of gender stereotypes where manly=good and girly=bad. I applaud the efforts to stand up to insensitive racial stereotypes in the church, but wish people hadn’t affirmed gender stereotypes in the process. And I really wonder if that same group of people would put forth the effort to take a stand for treating women in the church with respect just like they asked for Asians in the church to be treated with respect. I want to believe they would, but far too often I see sexism protected by the shield of “theology” in ways that racism can never be in our modern world.
Sexism is alive and well. This week has just been a reminder of how far we have to go until women are respected as fully human and not demeaned for the sake of entertainment.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
It’s really sad and pathetic that some people would be per se opposed to a woman or minority being president of Wheaton. I hope that’s a relatively small (if vocal) group.
I can understand (even though I disagree with) those who are against using extra effort to make sure that women and minority candidates are sought out. I personally think that the “extra effort” to find and encourage such candidates to apply is warranted, especiallly when the group making the decision (board of trustees or search committee or whoever) realizes it may be unconsciously or consciously biased toward white male candidates, and wants to make sure that bias is countered by intentionally bringing forward some highly qualified female and minority candidattes. But I understand the reasoning that says “open the door and consider whoever walks through it – don’t change the playing field by going outside the door and pulling in people who fit a certain demographic.” These people, to me, are a different subset than those who flat don’t want a woman or minority to win the post, period.
And I think you’re dealing with yet a third subset of people when you talk about those who make “assertions that the college should hire the most-qualified candidate.” I don’t really see how that is “implying that a woman or a minority would not fit that bill” unless there is something else in the context of what was said that makes the sexist implication. As an alum, I’m in that group – I want the most qualified candidate to be selected. I don’t mind at all if the most qualified candidate is a woman or a minority. If I need surgery, I want the most qualified, best available surgeon to do the surgery. I don’t care if that person is a man or woman, white or a minority – I just want them to be the best. I don’t think that makes me a racist or sexist, though. In fact I kind of think it makes me the opposite of racist or sexist.
Real sexism definitely exists in both obvious and subtle forms, and needs to be challenged. It is shameful and hurtful. As the father of 3 girls I don’t want my daughters being hurt by it and am sad that they will have to confront it. But I’m not always sure that everything that is taken as sexist by people who are highly sensitized to these issues, is really sexist. Like d-bag; is that really sexist? It’s a crass and vulgar term, but is it sexist? I don’t think calling someone a dickhead is anti-male, for example. Or is it?
Thanks for this. It is too true that women who are passionate, opinionated, and even sometimes (gasp!) angry are too often derided as bitches while the same behavior from men barely raises an eyebrow. I see it online, in the workplace, and worst of all in the church.I find it fascinating that Liftin’s greatest fear (echoed by one of the commentators you cited)was more women entering biblical studies. Why are so many men driven by such a fear of women?
I think you’ve hit on the next step for our conversations here. Using the Deadly Viper incident should give us a good stepping stone to say, “If you think this was bad for Asians, let’s think of how we do the same to women.” I tried to steer things in that direction on my blog this morning for what it’s worth.
The part that gets me is when some in the offending majority (read that white or male depending on your topic) insist on the offended minority (read that Asian or women) airing their grievances in a particular way. Some said that Prof. Rah didn’t handle the situation correctly, which just leads us into a frustrating and debilitating dead end. Instead of saying, “I’m sorry to hear I’ve hurt you,” some in the majority are saying, “Ah, ah, ah, you can’t complain about the way I hurt you unless you follow the biblical protocol as I interpret it.”
There will be times eventually to discuss whether or not conflict has been handled correctly, but when an offense has been made, it needs to be dealt with directly, rather than deflecting it away with silly arguments over how the offended have brought it up.
as a white american male, and as a follower of jesus, i’m ashamed and appalled at people who are so threatened by beauty and power and energy of women and non-whites. it breaks my heart. and pisses me off. we must do better. period.
i have a man-cave, by the way, which my wife named. i was just calling it an office (it’s half of our garage). but she loves that it’s a space for my books and toys and posters and laptop and stereo and bibles and comic books. i guess it’s not a typical man-cave. it has a lot of spiritual-feminine energy, actually – lots of compassion and creativity and openness and courage and receptivity. but it also has my fishing stuff in it. and some baseball gear.
it is my job as a follower of jesus who is also a white american male, to go many extra miles to be absolutely conscious and active in my promotion of, and inclusion of, and sensitivity to, my brothers and sisters. all of them. and especially those who are marginalized and oppressed. i’m in. i’m not always aware, but i am learning.
so, go julie!
Just a quick reminder that women are not, in fact, a minority. And I think it is there that our biggest problem lies…we are the only majority on the planet that allows ourselves to be oppressed. It flummoxes me!
Sarah-
So true. Women, especially in the church, need to stop being afraid of being called “unfeminine” or “bitches” and start speaking up. Unfortunately, those who do speak up often end up leaving the church. All the more reason we need more women as leaders at universities and in pulpits.
Karl – you’re right that there are differing reasons for people’s reactions to the letter. At the same time, regardless of their intentions a similar message gets heard that women and minorities are not wanted. And in a lot of the stuff I have read those “most-qualified person for the job” statements are said in ways that imply (often directly) that no woman or minority would be good enough.
As for the d-bag word. I know it is up for debate, but many people do find it to be sexist. The physical object itself was created because of men’s disgust of women’s bodies, and the “amusing” part of the term comes from how uncomfortable people are with women and our vaginas. It’s sexist because it plays off disgust of women. And while terms like “dickhead,” I never heard of any guy being forced to be ashamed because he has a dick. The use of that term is not meant to make guys feel bad about being a guy.
Ed – you make some great points. It’s is far easier to dismiss a conversation for a trivial reason like it doing being done in the right way (whatever that means), than it is to actually deal with it. No one ever wants to hear that they have offended someone else, but it has to be dealt with if we truly want to live out the christian life.
Rick – Your man-cave is all good..
But that brings up another point – my issue with a lot of this stuff is not so much the encouraging men to be men, but the insulting and demeaning women in order to define what a man is.
Rebekah – you’re right. many money leave the church because they just can’t stand being told over and over that they are worthless. It’s hard to keep a foot in that world and fight as a woman. sometimes it just takes more than what many of us are willing to give.
I’m an alum of Wheaton (graduated during those “liberal 80s”–and I’m glad to see Litfin go. He wasn’t president when I was there–but wheaton was still very conservative even then.
I think you’re right, Julie–people think this is not an issue because, after all, women can vote and even get promoted to CEO in the corporate world. The sexism is harder to fight because it’s sort of underground (though not very far underground). But it’s still there. Keep talking about this issue, it’s important.
Julie, I read through that link. I’m not sure the quote you posted is as much sexist as reactionary.
It seems to me, arguably, the context was the idea that a woman should be a priority rather than the idea that a woman should be considered equally.
I think the best candidate who applies, who can lead Wheaton with an eye both towards its weighty tradition and towards the challenges this mission faces in the present and the future. I fully support reminding those in charge of this they must be open to however the Spirit leads, in whoever the Spirit leads. If this is a woman, then wonderful. If this is another white man, then wonderful.
What’s interesting is that my perspective on women in ministry/leadership was very much bolstered by my time at Wheaton (which began during Litfin’s first year). Two of the best teachers I had were women–Dr. Calvert in the Bible department and Dr. Long in the history department. It’s just about impossible for me to say a woman can’t lead or teach when I was led and taught so much not only by these two but by so many others. Not least my worship leader wife (also a Wheaton graduate).
My perspective has always been affected by a bit of politics I learned about in another Christian university, where a woman professor (who was known more as an academic politician than a scholar) blocked the hiring of a very well known male scholar as dean and raised false charges of potential heresy. She was also applying for that same job. She was recently hired as dean of another school, and everything I know about her and what I’ve heard suggests she’s not someone who is attune to the Spirit–even as she fills a role as a woman leader in a known Christian institution.
My hope and my prayer is there will be many candidates, and Wheaton will continue to hold onto its absolutely passionate combination of academics and spiritual depth. If a particular woman can lead in this better than anyone else, she is precisely the one Wheaton needs.
If there is indeed sexism within the choosing committee, then that’s a very, very big shame for the college and its mission. And it absolutely should be fought against, led against, and otherwise overturned–for Christ and his kingdom.
This was a great post. I live in the South and go to a conservative church, so I face stereotypes all the time. Men being told to “reign in” their wives, husbands getting baptized before their wives so they can “lead” them, women denied decision-making roles in the church, etc. It’s alive and well.
Although, I must confess “douchebag” (and all its cousins, douchebaggy, douche-baggery, douchiness, etc.) is like my favorite crass term, ever. I never thought of it before as being sexist. Crap!
For what it’s worth, I went on a retreat recently and had the pleasure of meeting the first woman president of an Assemblies of God University (Vanguard). She was delightful, and has shown some amazing leadership in the midst of a daunting crisis she inherited from her (male) predecessors. So it can happen. Hopefully Wheaton doesn’t have to find itself in such dire straits to be open to a woman’s hand at the helm.
Of course, having attended a women’s college, I just plain don’t get it when anyone says that certain jobs are off-limits to women simply because they are women, no matter how many bible verses they quote. I’m just saying…
Good post Julie. As a husband and father (of daughters and sons — both of whom absorb the sexism of our culture to one degree or another), I’m sick of the sexism. Once we finally understood not just what people believed (which wasn’t that hard to pick up) but what our kids were absorbing from that spiritual environment, this was probably the main reason we quit attending our church. (Neither my wife nor I grew up in the context of evangelical Christianity, so it took us a long while to really see some things.)
I am grateful that the feminist efforts of the last century in particular have left this country in better shape in its attitude toward and treatment of women than the vast majority of the world. We’re a long way from eliminating or even dampening sexism, but it was a lot worse not that long ago.
Maybe because of the progress we have made, there are people who think there isn’t a problem any longer? Kinda like the people who think, because we elected Barack Obama as president, we no longer have a problem with racism?
A couple of things. I find myself compelled to do this. I’ll ask my spiritual director what it’s about…anyway…
I am sorry. I am sorry for my part in this as white, male, Baptist, Christian, privileged, etc etc…I’m not being sarcastic. And I am not interested in shouldering a burden that is not mine to shoulder. But there it is. I know that somehow I am part of this. As much as I speak out against it. As much as I try to bring forth women’s voices in my sermons, encourage female leadership in church (including the pulpit), advocate for my sisters in ministry, I know that I am still in the system…
Grace and peace to you, Julie. Keep at those people in Wheaton. I’m in Wilmette. If you need a place to crash when the formal protests begin, let me know. We have room for you and the whole family.
And I’ll stand there beside you, too.
I tried to comment yesterday but had connection problems, so I’m late to this thread, but thanks again to Julie for raising all this. In regards to the “most qualified candidate” rhetoric, something that struck me during the Sotomayor nomination process was that really, there were any number of people who could have ably served as Supreme Court justice, and that it’s probably a fallacy to imagine that there is just one singular person who is best qualified or more qualified than everybody else in the country. Different people could have served in that role, and they all would have brought different gifts and strengths to the work. The mythical quest for the “most qualified” person seems to often be a smokescreen for finding someone who is likely to fit certain preconceived qualifying, credentialing institutions.
The reality is that any number of people could probably be qualified to be Wheaton’s president, and each one would do so in different ways. So the more significant question is which way and which direction is most needed and strategic for the institution in this cultural context and moment.
I’d love to see Wheaton’s search committee broaden their criteria for “best qualified” to include the capacity for navigating cultural differences, significant experience as a third culture person or in global/cross-cultural contexts, empathic understanding of issues of gender, race, class and power, a track record of advocacy for underrepresented voices and perspectives, an ability to conduct irenic dialogue with people from different theological or academic traditions, etc. One could certainly make the case that if Wheaton wants to be relevant to the 21st century world, the next Christendom and the global south, it should install a president who is conversant with and representative of those new global realities.
Tripp – thank you
Patrick – I had a hard time figuring out how to respond to your post and have been thinking about it since yesterday. I understand that different people had far different experiences that me at Wheaton (and just fyi, my beliefs while I were there were on the women should be restricted side of things).
But two things bugged me in your comments.
1. Your story of the politically motivated professor. I’ve heard this before – someone had a bad experience with a woman or a black person or a hispanic somewhere sometime and so they form a prejudice against the entire group based on this one bad experience they had. Did you really just try to tell us here that you question the need for women women in leadership because you heard about a manipulative women once upon a time? Really? I could give you scores of stories about lying, cheating, manipulative men – but no one would ever then say that “my entire opinion about hiring men into positions of leadership is tainted because of those stories.” Why do you feel the need to do that with women?
2. Why would it be bad to give women priority? If it is the voice from the outside, a new perspective that is desired, why is it wrong to give that voice priority? Of course, there are white en that could do a good job. That’s not the point. The point is to bring in new perspectives, to allow people other than white guys to see themselves represented in these positions. Why is it wrong for that to be a priority?
Al – I think we crossposted, but I just wanted to say that I love your expanded definition of what “most qualified” means.
Julie, I didn’t read Patrick to be saying what you accuse him of saying. I think you’re putting words in his mouth. I hope he’s still around and will speak for himself, though.
I agree the college (or any organization/institution) should decide what direction it wants to go in, and what qualities it wants in its leaders, and then find the candidate who seems most able to take them in that direction and who has the most of those qualities. The ability to relate to women and minorities and understand their perspectives are worthy things to have on the list of criteria. But if it’s wrong to ever say about leadership that “THIS job calls for a MAN” then I think it’s equally wrong to say “this job calls for a woman” – which is what I think you are saying if you say that HIRING a woman for the post should be “a priority.” It’s different to say that it’s a priority to make sure we consider qualified women for the job on an equal footing with men – that is right and good. And I think that because of historical inequities and current prejudices both conscious and subconscious, it is a good thing to make extra efforts to include women in the pool of applicants.
One follow-up comment I forgot to make earlier – even though there are cultural/institutional forces at work beyond the presence of any particular individual, it’s true that a single person’s appointment in leadership can make a huge difference in communicating something about the nature or direction of an institution. I’m thinking about the significance of Trinity Ev. Div. School having Tite Tienou as dean and how that has helped shift TEDS from what was a predominantly North American institution to one that is much more in tune with the realities of the global church. Having Jeanette Hsieh as interim president for two years also signaled something about Trinity’s willingness to have women and ethnic minorities in executive leadership positions. TEDS of course has its own issues and problems, but I’m encouraged by their example in this regard.
Karl – yes, I would like clarification from Patrick. I’m having a hard time understanding what the point of his story was besides that.
and you wrote – “But if it’s wrong to ever say about leadership that “THIS job calls for a MAN” then I think it’s equally wrong to say “this job calls for a woman” – which is what I think you are saying if you say that HIRING a woman for the post should be “a priority.””
I could agree with you if we lived in a world where women and men (or whites and minorities) had completely equal opportunities all the time. But that world doesn’t exist. The differences between those two statements rests on what they mean in an unequal world. When people say “This job calls for a man” – they mean, we think men are more powerful, more intelligent, more God-ordained, and simply better than women so that’s why they should have this job. In this context saying “this job calls for a woman” means that we need to make room for a perspective that until now has been silenced and ignored. It is not an assertion of “better then” but an acknowledgment that all voices should be heard and that healing needs to take place. Or like Al said above, it sends a message that the institution is willing to be in tune with the realities of our modern global world. Until all things are equal, until that message is no longer needed, until all perspectives are equally represented, then yes we have to say things like “this job calls for a woman or a minority.” I know that it is uncomfortable for white men to hear that and make space for other voices to have the floor, but it has to happen for reconcilliation to begin and for the American church to have a valid voice in future of christianity.
sarah (no. 5) : you’re right, women aren’t a minority but i think the reason women still struggle for equality isn’t about numbers but a lack of power. patriarchy is sadly alive and well in the evangelical church and until that structural sin is dismantled women will continue to struggle despite being a majority. to a large degree men are still the ones who hold the decision-making power in much of the church.
As a Wheaton alum, I too am hoping that female and minority applicants will be seriously considered for this important post.
It’s encouraging that many on the Bible/Theology faculty are egalitarians although complementarianism seems to remain dominant among students, administration and influential alumni.
I might have a slight disagreement with your assessment of Dr. Litfin as “ultra-conservative” and “anti-ecumenical.” I certainly don’t agree with his complementarian position on women, but he is far from being an Al Mohler type of figurehead who is hostile to evangelical diversity on contentious issues like gender roles, soteriology and eschatology.
According to The Record (student newspaper), something like 75% of Wheaton’s faculty voted for Obama last year (compared with approx 25% evangelicals nationwide). From what I remember of my experience there (I’m an Asian-American who graduated in ‘03), Wheaton is certainly not as diverse as I’d like it to be, but it’s fairly ecumenical compared to other non-denominational evangelical schools.
For example, I was taught theistic evolution in my geology class and sophisticatedly advised to vote for Al Gore (2000) by my polysci professor… not that I objected.
I understand that perspective Julie, and as a white man I realize my opinion on it is suspect from the get-go. I have an inherent conflict of interest that I have to acknowledge and at least try to put aside when thinking about these things.
But I tend to agree with people like Arthur Ashe, who find the idea of anybody (male, female, white, black, latino, asian, whatever) getting a job or admission to a school *because of* their race or gender to be insulting and also a disincentive to striving for excellence. I’ve seen affirmative action at play in graduate school, at a top 25 law school. It wasn’t fair to anybody, as far as I could tell. People were accepted to the school who wouldn’t have gotten in on the basis of their undergrad grades and LSAT scores alone, and then struggled to survive in a system where all grading is done anonymously and you are graded solely on how clearly you write and think, without an extra bump for not being a white male. There was one non-asian minority student who was near the top 10% of our class, and he was from a fairly wealthy family with parents who were both academics, and went to an elite private college for undergrad – far more privileged than most of his classmates of any race. There was one other minority in the top 1/3 of the class, and she also was from a wealthy family; her father was a doctor. The rest of the non-asian minority students (roughly 20% of our class) finished in the bottom 1/2 of the class by the time we graduated. They struggled to survive in the competitive, anonymously-graded atmosphere of a top 25 school, when most of their non-minority classmates with whom they were competing had stronger academic credentials. It isn’t that there don’t exist minorities who are smart enough to excel at that law school – there do but they wouldn’t go there because they can get into top 5 or top 10 ranked law schools, based again on affirmative action-type policies.
In competing for interviews to land jobs at law firms, any minority (and, to a lesser but significant extent any woman) who was remotely qualified, got way more job interviews and offers than white male classmates who were significantly more qualified. And it’s a well-kept secret at the big law firms that practice really demanding law, that often these people who are hired in order to fill a quota struggle to perform in that work environment. Not always, by any means. But fairly often. It’s not their fault as much as it is a system that sets them up to fall hard at some point by artificially propping them up along the way. It also perpetuates the (false) stereotype that people of certain ethnicities or gender AREN’T going to be the most qualified – because for the most part white males are dealing along the way with minority classmates and workmates most of whom aren’t as qualified as their white male counterparts.
I had a conversation with a classmate and friend in the gym one day, initiated by him. He asked where else I had applied for law school and I mentioned the top-10 law school at University of Virginia, and said I had considered applying there but after taking the LSAT and looking at my undergrad grades and talking with some people, I realized it would be a real long shot and I figured at best I’d be wait listed, so I stuck with the school we were both attending. He asked what my grades and LSAT were and when I told him his eyes bugged out. “Man, you’re crazy. With those numbers, you could’ve gone to UVa on a full ride!” I didn’t want to burst his bubble and tell him that no, with those grades and LSAT scores HE could have gone to UVa Law on a full ride, but his white male (and female) classmates would have been lucky to make a wait list.
So I observed all of that. But as a white man I risk sounding like bitter white guy (I’m not bitter about it – I was just naive about it until I saw it first hand and it was kind of an eye-opener) if I speak about it. I completely agree that female and minority voices and perspectives are needed in academia and in all walks of life. And I would add preemptively that test scores and grades don’t always measure what one can contribute to an institution or work place. And there are many highly qualified brilliant women and minorities who can do just fine, on their own merit, at the highest level in any field, and only need doors to be open for them. I’m sure there are such people who are candidates for the Wheaton post and I want to see them considered. But I’d still much rather see a job description crafted and a vision for the position developed, and have every person be given equal access to that job regardless of gender or ethnicity. I think it comes back to a distinction I made once before – do we want to *model* fairness, or do we want to seek somehow to *create* fairness by being unfair in the opposite direction from past unfairness?
The problem with this statement is that it assumes that gender and ethnicity are neutral factors that add nothing to the value of a potential candidate. But that’s obviously not the case. I agree with what Al Hsu pointed out, that we want a president that can bring certain qualities to the position, and I would say that some of those qualities are things which women and minorities are uniquely suited to bring.
Julie, not much to add to the convo. Just wanted to say that I love that you posted about it and that I had a chance to read through some brilliant thoughts in the comments as well.
I would love some input/help on how to take this open letter another step. I’ve got some ideas, but need others around the table.
“The problem with this statement is that it assumes that gender and ethnicity are neutral factors that add nothing to the value of a potential candidate.”
I wasn’t assuming gender and ethnicity are always neutral factors. I want to see a vision and job description crafted, and then hire the best person to carry out that vision and job description. If a candidate’s ethnicity and gender make them uniquely suited to carry out that mission and fulfill the job description and those things form part of the reason they are the best person for the job, then those are factors that should be considered.
But rather than race or gender per se, I’d prefer to see a person’s whole life experience and qualifications and their approach to the issues pertinent to their potential position taken into account. The way it’s being framed by some people here seems to suggest that all african americans, or all women, or all white men for that matter, are going to be coming from the same point of view and bringing the same set of “female” or “black” or “white” strengths and weaknesses – the “women’s position” on X, or “the african american position” on X. And we all know that’s not true, either. The people hoping fervently for a female or minority president at Wheaton probably wouldn’t be too pleased if Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes or a female or minority who held similar views to Duane Litfin, was appointed.
In suggesting that sometimes a woman or minority may be uniquely suited for a job by virtue of her gender or race, are you also saying the converse is true – that there are some jobs where a white male brings needed qualities to the table that a woman or minority aren’t as well suited to bring because they aren’t white and male?
Karl – once again you go to the extremes. I don’t think anyone in this discussion is saying that ANY particular woman or ANY particular minority is more suited for anything than any white man. It is farcical to assume so and misses the point of the whole discussion.
I getting a bit disturbed by what’s emerging in your recent comments. You played the whole, “see white men are smarter than minorities card so it’s not fair that they get any anything.” You keep making statements assuming all things are equal. That women and minorities have had all the privledges as white men and that to give them any extra attention is unfair to white men. Do you really think that? Why else would you share the stories that you do unless there is that underlying attitude. Do you really not think that women and minorities deserve to be given a voice? Or that we have something to say? I’m getting really confused as to what you really think as this conversation continues.
Julie, likewise I have trouble seeing how Karl is playing the “white men are smarter than minorities” card.. “do you really not think that women and minorities deserve to be given a voice”. I’m sorry but no matter how naive he may be in thinking that all things are equal to begin, which they are not, I think that statements too really are a bit extreme IMHO, i think that really is making too much of a leap and projecting the most negative qualities on someone who comes from a more conservative place.
What I got out of it (but correct me if im wrong) is that he would rather other variables– and there are far more variables in a person’s makeup than gender and ethnicity– be at the forefront when assessing a person’s suitability. I am a female of colour but I’ve always been defined by other variables. What if I were appointed president of Wheaton because as an ethnic minority female, I might be able to bring something new to the table, when at the end of the day what really informs my entire worldview is, let’s say, classic conservatism? Those thinking a minority female would be able to bring something new to the table would be sorely mistaken. It seems to be what Karl is trying to say but I may be wrong.
At the end of the day, women definitely still don’t get paid as much as men, while they are expected to do double the work in our society (work AND be caregiver and caretaker of the home and kids)– that’s one HUGE sign or everyone everywhere that all things are *still* not equal. But I understand the sentiment behind, “I want things to be equal for all people, but I really think this is ‘overcorrection’.”, even though the signs point in the direction that things aren’t equal just yet. I’m sorry Julie, but much as you can and should disagree with Karl’s conclusions, assuming that the underlying motive is to oppress or silence, or that he thinks marginalised groups have nothing of value to contribute, is not helpful at all.
Julie, once again I didn’t say what you say I said. I didn’t say white men are smarter than minorities or women nor do I believe they are. Where do you get that from what I said? Pippin is a lot closer to understanding what I was trying to say; I don’t think I was unclear.
I think there’s naivete to go around. I’m not as naive as I once was, but admit to Pippin’s charge that I am still probably naive regarding the subtle and not-so subtle barriers faced by women and minorities in academia and the workplace and in society in general. I had some eye-opening dissussions with the law school classmate I mentioned whose father was a doctor. Growing up in a wealthy, gated community and going to great schools, she had economic and educational privileges that most of her white classmates didn’t, and those were going to continue as she competed with them in a job market where top employers were desperate to hire minorities and women so they could look inclusive. But she spoke eloquently about the discrimination she still felt, and the humiliation of her brothers’ being pulled over on a near monthly basis for “driving while black” in their family’s BMW’s and Audi’s. She helped me to see why she and my other african american classmates celebrated the verdict in the OJ Simpson case and why it was easy for them to believe the cops would frame OJ. She talked about how subtle attitudes of her white classmates made her feel she would never be one of them, never a part of their world, even if she wanted to be. She also talked about her sense of isolation from other minority students because due to her affluent background, nice clothes and car, and proper english they felt she was “acting white” and ostracized her. She was in a no-man’s land, and in pain. She challenged my naivete’, and both before and since knowing her, others have as well.
But there’s naivete elsewhere too – a naivete that would never believe stories such as those I shared that you seem to find offensive even though they are true, are common too and are often the result of a quota-like aggressive affirmative action. Naivete like that of my friend who just KNEW that with my grades and scores, I could have gotten a full ride to a prestigious law school and probably a generous living stipend to boot, if I had just applied for it.
Unless you believe that it’s per se sexist and racist to think aggressive affirmative action is a well meaning but bad idea that is unfair and demeaning to all involved (not just white men), then I really don’t get where you are coming from. “See it my way or else you are sexist and racist and think white men are superior?” Really? You would probably say that’s not what you’re saying, but I don’t see where the room exists to disagree and not be considered an oppressor somehow.
“I don’t think anyone in this discussion is saying that ANY particular woman or ANY particular minority is more suited for anything than any white man”
-Where did I say that?
Pippin, I would ask what “things” we are talking about, and in what context, when we talk about inequality. I probably agree with you about many of the things that you would say are still unequal. In those places I also would agree that such inequality ought to be addressed. It’s wrong that women are often paid less than men for the same work; it’s wrong that women often have to work 2x as hard to be seen as equal by men. Many societal stereotypes that still exist about girls and women and that harm them or discourage them from achieving in certain areas are wrong. I’d like to see all of that change. Especially since I have 3 daughters who I don’t want to have to deal with sexism that women today and in past generations have dealt with. I’m pretty sure we have a large area of agreement here.
Where we may or may not agree, and where it seems that Julie and I disagree, is around the issues of WHAT to do to address the inequalities; HOW true equality might best be achieved. I don’t think that makes me sexist or means I want to silence women and don’t value their voices. I also think the distinction I made before is relevant – whether we want to *model* fairness and equality in our decisions, or whether we want to do our part to *cause* greater overall fairness and equality, and are willing to have some unfairness and inequality (in the opposite direction) until we decide we’ve reached the desired macro-level goal of overall equality. There’s probably room for a blended approach of some sort (that’s what I would seek), but there’s definite tension between the two paradigms.
Karl –
It’s your tone and choice of language that gets me.
You talked about the “system that sets them up to fall hard at some point by artificially propping them up along the way.”
And assert that – “for the most part white males are dealing along the way with minority classmates and workmates most of whom aren’t as qualified as their white male.” counterparts”
So what do we do with that? What I hear you saying is that helping people might end up hurting them and that in the end helping them just isn’t fair to smarter white males – so therefore we shouldn’t do anything to help women or minorities get ahead.
So that is where my questions came from. You can have the opinion. But what do you suggest then as what can else can help women and minorities have a voice, or do you think we should at all? Or do you think we should just leave things as they are and just hope it all equals out one day?
Your quota story obviously hurt you. And yes, I admit it’s not fair to you to makes changes to a system that was designed to reward white men while keeping everyone else down. And yes, it is going to take a long time before the system changes and everyone else is not expected to be like white men (and evaluated thereas) in order to play in these systems. So yes, we are going to struggle to play catch-up in your world once we are allowed in. And yes some of us are going to fail because we don’t have the same advantages as you to succeed in that system. We need a better system, but deal with what we have in the meantime. So yes, it hurts to then hear you say that you think it’s unfair that you have to let us in since you are obviously so much better at playing your game than we are. And it hurts to hear you say that maybe we would be better off not having to deal with the hurt that failing in your world might bring. The SYSTEM is unfair and it is demeaning and I do think that it is racist and sexist to not be working to change the system. And I think to change that system women and minority voices need to be heard in ways that they have never been heard before. And I for one don’t just want to leave it up to chance that someday that will just happen. Justice and reconciliation take effort.
And when you ask this question “In suggesting that sometimes a woman or minority may be uniquely suited for a job by virtue of her gender or race, are you also saying the converse is true – that there are some jobs where a white male brings needed qualities to the table that a woman or minority aren’t as well suited to bring because they aren’t white and male?” It really shows how you do not get the underlying argument. Women’s and minority’s voices are needed because those are voices that are generally not heard. Our experiences of being hated or silenced or not given opportunities do inform who we are. We need to have white male voices in the mix as well, but since white men have never been an oppressed and silenced minority there is not the need to champion his voice – it is always already there. This isn’t a “better than” discussion, it is about doing whatever we can to make sure all voices are heard.
Julie,
Thank you very much for addressing this issue. And thank you for continuing on in the discussion and addressing the issues in spite of misunderstandings. This is very needed.
My husband and I live outside of the US most of the time, but we and our three boys and one girl just spent one year back in the US. I have noticed since returning overseas that my boys (now 11 and 8 and 5) regularly make comments about things that are “girly” and how that is “yucky” or how they don’t want a particular thing because it is a girl’s thing. This was never an issue before this last time back to the US (we go back every 3 years and stay for 1 year). Part of it might be inevitable but it came from the US culture, not the culture in which we spend the majority of our time (these sort of distinctions are absent here, other oppression, yes, but not this kind of type-casting). I was amazed at how ingrained these concepts are already, even though we have tried to steer away from such thing and try to model equality in the home, with both parents working and thus both parents sharing the load at home; in addition my kids see their grandparents doing the same thing (both working and sharing the house-hold load).
My point is this: sexism, inequality and gender-stereotyping are exuded from every pore in America. It just is. And it does affect our daughters, the way they grow and learn, the opportunities they have and what they are able to accomplish and thus it affects our homes, schools, churches,workplaces, ad infinitum. But it also affects our boys as well in the sense that they are less than they could be also if they do not see and experience wholeness (shalom) in this area as well. It is essential that we learn how to hear all the voices, and in making reparations for past negligence (or intended slight or oppression), we have to listen harder for a time (maybe a looong time), get inside the other’s head for a while in order to try to see what they see, walk in their shoes for a time to try to feel what they feel and at all times remember that our blind-spots are just that: spots to which we are blind.
So, thanks Julie for these your comments and thank you too Al for your definition of “best-qualified”. What a good example of how things are culturally defined and in this inter-cultural day in America’s history, we need to understand better what that means and how that looks in “American” society where we have people interacting from cultures from all over the world. May we continue to strive together toward the goal of understanding.
Julie, I’m sorry my tone was offensive to you. I don’t want tone to get in the way of honest conversation. I’ll try to take some of the points you raise one at a time.
First, you say that it’s obvious my quota story hurt me. Actually it didn’t. It surprised me, and yes I found it to be unfair and counterproductive in the long run not just for white men but more importantly, for the ends it is trying to achieve. But I never aspired to work in the biggest law firms in the biggest cities nor to climb to the top of the law school heap. Inspired by a Wendell Berry-esque pull to the smaller and the local, I wanted to come home and work in or near the medium-sized community bordered by rural areas in which I grew up. That was available to me, and that’s what I’m doing. I didn’t really get caught up in the competitive rat race of law school and post law school job seeking and wasn’t injured by a quota system. But I got to observe it firsthand, and that’s what I was posting about. Besides the law school experience I had a job in a relatively large (for this mid-sized city) law firm for a while, and I have friends who are lawyers including hiring partners and recruiting coordinators, at some of the larger law firms on the east coast and in the mid atlantic. So I have some insight into what this stuff looks like on the ground, at least in the legal job market. I also have quite a few friends who are PhD’s with whom I talked at length about the academic job market when I considered leaving law and going back to get a doctorate, and these same issues came up. Finally, I practiced employment law for several years and handled issues related to Title VII and race/sex discrimination in the workplace, advising both employers and employees. So while my opinion is only one opinion among many, it’s not like I’m totally unfamiliar with the issues.
Prior to law school my understanding of affirmative action was that it was kind of a tie-breaker. When considering candidates who are similarly skilled and with different but roughly equivalent sets of strengths and weaknesses (I know as per Al Hsu there are no such thing as identical candidates but I’m talking about two candidates where an employer or admissions officer would have a *really* hard time choosing one over the other based solely on their unique skill sets and abilities), then the idea that race or gender inclusion is important enough to then tip the scales between those candidates in favor of the under-represented group makes a lot of sense to me. But that’s not what I saw in practice – it went significantly beyond that, and your comments also seem to call for more than that.
You keep talking about people who don’t have “the same advantages as” me, and a system that is set up to reward and benefit white men. First, I agree that with white men still in control in much of academia and the workplace, there are unconscious and conscious biases built into the system as well as the minds of individuals, that often make it harder for women and minorities than for white males. There are also stereotypes along the way that girls and minorities have to combat from childhood. But what I’m talking about isn’t that. I’m talking about raw, measurable skills in an anonymous environment where many of the professors doling out the grades are women and minorities themselves. In law school what’s important is the ability to think and write clearly, the ability to identify issues and articulate and analyze them concisely, coherently and thoroughly that matters. Those aren’t gender or race-specific traits in which white males have some unfair advantage. It’s not like minorities got better grades in the classes taught and graded by our black female professors than they did in the ones taught and graded by white male professors.
Every law school has a publication that is called its “Law Review.” It’s an academic journal that is staffed by 2nd and 3rd year law students who choose, edit and then publish scholarly articles that are submitted by professors and legal scholars from around the country. There is a writing competition in your first year of law school, and the authors of the top 15-20 papers submitted (all papers written on the same legal topic and fact pattern, with the same research material available to all) then make the Law Review Staff for the coming year. It’s a prestigious and sought-after thing, and looks great on a resume’. The papers are submitted and judged anonymously. When I was in law school in the mid 90’s it had been more than 15 years since any non-asian minority made the law review staff, and none made it during the 3 years I was there. Why? Is it because minorities can’t write as well as white people? No, of course not. But because (in my opinion) of affirmative action’s helping hand placing people with lower qualifications and abilities in places where their competition is better prepared to compete than they are. That’s what I meant by setting people up to fail. There exist plenty of minorities with the writing and analytical skills to make my law school’s law review. They just for the most part didn’t go to my law school – why would they when due to affirmative action they could go to a top 10 law school instead? More power to them – I’d do the same. But my minority law school classmates were denied the opportunity to ever make a law review or to have “law review editor” on their resume’ because they weren’t placed in a law school where their skill set was competitive enough for that to be a realistic goal. That’s what I mean by these well intentioned policies perpetuating a stereotype. After that 3-year experience what do you think my white classmate who is now the hiring partner at a large law firm assumes about the skill set (writing and analytical ability) of a minority from our law school who comes to him and applies for a job? He has to overcome a stereotype that was strengthened, rather than weakened, by his experience with affirmative action.
You ask: so what do we do? I’d like to see any obstacles that keep women and minorities from gaining the skills needed to thrive in academia and the job market identified and removed, stereotypes fought, and qualified women and minorities recruited hard for job openings, but without race/gender being a trump card that is weighted more heavily than other factors. I don’t think it’s accurate to say “this job requires a woman” just because women have been underrepresented in the past. “This job” requires a lot of things – most of which are gender and race neutral. It would be great to find a woman or minority who can fill the job, because women and minorities *are* underrepresented and their voices *are* needed. Maybe by virtue of being a woman or minority the person would bring something beneficial to their ability to actually perform the duties of the job that a white man couldn’t, and if so then that should definitely be added in as a factor in their favor. And finally, if several great candidates have been identified and there is no clear “best” among them because their relative strengths and weaknesses kind of trade off against one another vis a vis the job description, then I’d like to see the candidate from an underrepresented group get the bump over a candidate from the majority group. I think that often happens, and am glad for it to happen.
I should clarify that when I typed in conclusion “I think that often happens, and am glad for it to happen” I don’t mean to imply that I think we’ve arrived at equality, or that “it happens” nearly often enough. “It” needs to happen more consistently until we are a lot closer to an equality where race and gender don’t need to be considered at all.
These stories must be told. Thank you.
Karl – wanting to combat racism and sexism without making race or sex an issue is impossible. And working for equality will always look unfair to those in power.
I would suggest that you take the time to understand why minorities and women don’t have the same advantages as you. Why we continue to feel oppressed and second class. Maybe then you will begin to understand why your words here truly are offensive.
Karl, as I’ve said before, as an Asian female, I disagree with your conclusions but appreciate the thought that goes into the conversations you are trying to build. If you’d like we could always have some dialogue on this over a virtual cup of coffee and maybe hopefully come a bit closer to understanding.
Pippin, I would appreciate hearing your perspective. I’m interested in openly discussing the issues and am willing to learn and change my position, especially if the person I’m talking to comes in with the same willingness. It’s hard to do that when no matter how respectfully they are stated, certain (fairly mainstream) opinions or real-life observations are viewed as completely out of bounds and offensive.
What concerns me Julie, is that I am actually a lot closer to your position than most people who don’t already hold your position. A lot of people would just say “put out an ad, open the door and then interview whoever walks in.” And that’s often what happens, in practice. Because of the inequity that you point out in every other sentence, I think we should go a step further and actively recruit minority and female candidates for a post like Wheaton’s president, and for any other job openings. But because I don’t think we should have a quota or mandate the hiring of a certain type of candidate I’m still an offensive oppressor in your book. How can anyone who disagrees even a little bit with you ever have a dialogue with that? In addition to my own observations, minority writers (Stephen L. Carter, Arthur Ashe for example) have shaped my opinion on this issue. But I guess they are the wrong kind of minirities for this blog. Apparently we should tell Yale to fire Stephen Carter for a racist, and people should lose all respect for Arthur Ashe. I’m open to learning why they and I are wrong. But that’s not likely to happen if sharing what I’ve observed and how they’ve shaped my thinking about this issue, elicits nothing logical but simply a firestorm of name calling and accusations.
Hi Julie,
Thanks for the good post and reminding me, a Norwegain male living in a country(Sweden) which like Norway certainly is top of the list when it comes to equality between the sexes in most spheres, that even here we have a long journey ahead. I have worked with sexism issues for many years and am well aware of the injustices and unfortunate language we (men and woman) are pretty much born with. Its in my blood, and my wife from time to time points out how even I still need to cleanse out some more poison from my system (I thought it was long gone).
Grace,peace and support to you!
/Daniel
Karl -
“I don’t think we should have a quota or mandate the hiring of a certain type of candidate I’m still an offensive oppressor in your book. How can anyone who disagrees even a little bit with you ever have a dialogue with that?”
That isn’t my issue. What was uncomfortable to read was the attitude that insisted that white men are more qualified and that it is unfair to them to give opportunities to others. You keep bringing up your anecdote as if it proves that whenever women or minorities are given chances (like with quotas) they obviously could never have gotten the job on merit. That assumption is hurtful. And my point is that assumptions like that are part of what need to be overcome. On one hand women and minorities should not be judged at how close they come to being like white men in a system created for white men – we need new more equal rubrics. But we also need to get rid of the assumption that women and minorities that get hired are always less capable than white men. That should never ever be used as an argument as to why power should remain in the hands of white men.
Similarly, it’s your attitude that equalizing the playing field is unfair to white men. You said that giving chances to women and minorities is “unfairness and inequality (in the opposite direction).” How is that so? If you truly care about equality, working for it isn’t unfairness to men, it is simply leveling the playing field. I really really don’t get the accusations that its unfair to white men when women or minorities get hired or are given opportunities to help them overcome the hardships of the oppression they have faced. Sure, it is uncomfortable and humbling to have to share power and privilege equally – but how is it unfair and unequal? Is not getting to oppress others unfair? I really don’t get it and found your repeated use of that sentiment to be offensive.
So this isn’t about quotas. This is about the attitudes expressed as you defended your opposition to quotas.
Julie, similarly, you keep bringing up the same point and assume people are coming from a position from a position where they would rather choose to oppress and keep the power to themselves. Even if, looking through your framework, that is the result, it is clear he’s looking through a completely different framework altogether– as a result you keep talking past each other. There have been many points that Karl has been pondering, perhaps through a different framework, but I haven’t seen you even try to address any of those issues and meet him on his level. There’s no chance of dialogue and hopefully a change of mindset. I admire your unwillingness to compromise, and tell it like it is. But honestly Julie, sometimes you’re pretty good at shutting down dialogue with anyone who falls short of your values. And that’s sad because, these are the people who, if you sat down and had a real conversation over the issues they still can’t get– rather than talking at them, they might be the people who you might win over most.
Pippin – I understand what you are saying. An yes, in this format it is difficult to have a nuanced conversation. I’ve learned that I often have to go straight to assumptions and underlying beliefs with most of these issues or else people end up just talking different languages. Yes, that means I often ignore points people bring up and shift the conversation to those basic beliefs. Yes, that can derail conversation, but I’ve gotten sick of going in circles simply because people are coming from different points. I’ve learned I have to say what I mean and not skirt around issues, and so I thank you for feeling free to be direct here and tell me what you think about how I interact with others.
Julie, as long as you continue to make blasnket, unsupported assumptions about the motives, character and underlying beliefs of people who you don’t even know, you are going to continue to either shut down dialogue, or go in circles. From your last post alone, here are a list of things you attribute to me that are untrue:
- “the attitude that insisted that white men are more qualified”
-[a belief on my part that] “it is unfair to them [white men] to give opportunities to others”
-”You keep bringing up your anecdote as if it proves that whenever women or minorities are given chances (like with quotas) they obviously could never have gotten the job on merit” [absolutely not true and you're totally missing the point if that's why you think I bring up those anecdotes (plural)]
- [a belief] “that equalizing the playing field is unfair to white men.”
- “giving chances to women and minorities is “unfairness and inequality (in the opposite direction).”” [I used those terms, but about a quota-based affirmative action, not about giving chances to minorities and women]
- “we also need to get rid of the assumption that women and minorities that get hired are always less capable than white men.” [you make that statement as if I disagree with you, or hold that assumption myself. actually my whole point is that this incorrect, hurtful assumption is often perpetuated by aggressive affirmative action programs, rather than those programs helping get rid of it]
- “power should remain in the hands of white men.” [you have obviously decided that this is what is motivating me and are determined to not be convinced otherwise. But you're wrong.]
- “it’s your attitude that equalizing the playing field is unfair to white men.” [that's not what I believe. if it's what you're picking up it's something you are reading INTO the discussion. or maybe we're disagreeing about what it looks like to truly "equalize the playing field." But I want an equal playing field for my daughters, and for you, and for any woman or minority.]
- “giving chances to women and minorities is “unfairness and inequality (in the opposite direction).”” [again, I said those words about something very different than just "giving chances to women and minorities."]
- “I really really don’t get the accusations that its unfair to white men when women or minorities get hired or are given opportunities to help them overcome the hardships of the oppression they have faced.” [I'd feel really bad, if I had actually said any such thing]
- “Sure, it is uncomfortable and humbling to have to share power and privilege equally. Is not getting to oppress others unfair?”[condescension and false attribution of motives - like flattery - will get you everywhere]
Julie, virtually every statement that you made about me personally, about my motives, or about the actual substance of my position, was false, distorted and unfair. If you can’t repeat someone’s position back to them in a way that they would own and say “yeah, that’s a fair representation of what I believe, let’s talk about why you disagree with it” then you’ll never have dialogue, just a harangue. You use the same rhetorical tactics that the worst fundy critics of emergent use. I’m ok with having my motives or bias questioned, if it’s an honest question and not a dismissive accusation. We can have honest conversation about that. But I’m not ok with having false accusations flung out as if they were certain, blanket generalizations made and lies told as if they were truth. The fact that you see yourself as on the side of righteousness doesn’t excuse you from the rules of fair play and logic and reading comprehension.
“I’ve learned that I often have to go straight to assumptions and underlying beliefs with most of these issues”
The method you describe to Pippin sounds like Bulverism to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
“Bulverism is a logical fallacy in which, rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis. It is very similar to Antony Flew’s “Subject/Motive Shift”.
Pattern
The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:
You claim that A is true.
Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.
Therefore, A is false.
or
You claim that A is false.
Because of B, you personally desire that A should be false.
Therefore, A is true.
Karl really? I tell you how your words are hurtful and all you got is to tell me I’m wrong for feeling like I do and then accuse me of some stupid logical fallacy that has nothing to do with what I said? I’m sorry, but I thought you were actually interested in the conversation and in understanding a different perspective. I can finally see why others have advised me to give up on this particular conversation as a waste of time.
I just found your blog, following the Viper conversations and my comments will be a bit all over the place but I thank you for writing this. It’s difficult and painful to be a woman in Christian circles sometimes. I too live in a liberal town (Madison, WI), worked for many years in a more liberal Christian org (InterVarsity), and yet at church … ugh. It hurts. Often. … I am a feminist, in that I believe I am as fully worthy of equal treatment before God and others as any man, capable and deserving to be considered for any job…. Sometimes I can’t believe what I’m hearing (stories like Wheaton’s leadership search) and then I go to church and the call for elders comes up and I am back down in it again …. I am with you. Don’t let certain individuals drag you into unproductive arguments. They don’t deserve your energy.
In suggesting that sometimes a woman or minority may be uniquely suited for a job by virtue of her gender or race, are you also saying the converse is true – that there are some jobs where a white male brings needed qualities to the table that a woman or minority aren’t as well suited to bring because they aren’t white and male?
karl, please don’t take this the wrong way as it’s not meant as a slight but just an observation. i think your above statement shows you don’t really have a great understanding of issues of feminism. i think a site that would help you in this is feminism 101. i’m still just learning myself and came across this site recently. while you may not agree with everything or even much there i think it will help you to understand where feminists are coming from and help in your dialogs. a good read would be their page on male privilege and some of the accompanying links.
Julie, I’ve received the same advice. So far, I’ve tried to stay in dialogue because even though I disagree with you about a lot, I’m concerned about many of the same issues you are. I’ve also seen the complaints that people who are more conservative than you aren’t interested in discussion but just come through for drive-by insults and accusations and then never stay and dialogue. It’s not my intent but maybe my presence here gives you an idea of how the folks in your former, conservative church felt about you, when you (rightly) weren’t willing to just sit quietly and accept what they said without questioning it. It gets frustrating to have someone committed to being part of your community, who doesn’t agree with all of the community’s assumptions and accepted dogmas and raises questions about them.
You told me my words were hurtful. I apologized, and I apologize again for hurting you. I’m not trying to be hurtful, but rather discuss the issue of quotas and affirmative action as it arose in the conversation about Wheaton’s president. I realize the issue is so charged with hurt for you that it’s hard to hear a contrary opinion without being hurt, but hurting you isn’t my intent. You also made a bunch of incorrect assumptions about me, and assigned motives to me that are untrue and insulting. Every statement that I listed above that you made about me or my beliefs about this issue and reasons for having them – is untrue. You may hear me and FEEL like those things are true about me, but they aren’t.
You dismissed Pippin’s suggestion that you actually engage the issues themselves by basically saying that you prefer to expose people’s bad motives and false underlying beliefs for holding their position – rather than engage their opinion about the issue itself. That’s Bulverism, at least in the way you practiced it with me, because the assumptions and motives and underlying beliefs you “exposed” aren’t assumptions or beliefs of mine. You don’t seem to have any interest in engaging, unlike Pippin who also thinks I’m wrong but would be willing to actually talk about the issues instead of accuse me of sexism for having a different opinion.
Linda, thanks for the link. I’m sure I do have some things to learn about feminism and I’ll check it out. But feminism isn’t brand new to me. I’m in favor of women in leadership and in all roles of ministry. I’m in favor of equal pay for equal work and equal access to jobs and educational opportunities. I was contributing to Christians for Biblical Equality and reading The Priscilla Papers when Julie was still arguing for Traditional Gender Roles. By the measures of most fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, I am a feminist. But there are aspects of feminist thought that I disagree with. Disagreement with a position doesn’t necessarily mean ignorance of it.
I’m sorry for the double post, but I should have added Julie, that I’m really sorry that we apparently can’t discuss this issue (along with so many others) without me making you mad. It honestly makes me sad (like, it’s been hanging over me in the background like a black cloud the last few days), and makes me wonder about the feasibility of one of the things I really value – the possibility of dialogue and conversation across ideological and theological lines.
To Melody– “don’t let certain individuals drag you into unproductive arguments… they don’t deserve your energy”. I for one think those are important discussions to be had. I find those to be genuine questions, which have unfortunately been dismissed completely.
I remember the classic “who is a feminist” question– we were asked in gender studies, “are you a feminist?” Most of us said we weren’t. “Well then, do you see women as equal to men? Do you agree that women should be free from inequality and oppression” Everyone nodded. “Well then, you’re a feminist”
That is a very loose definition obviously– and the correct term that we use is ‘feminisms’, because while everyone can agree that women should be equal, not everyone agrees with how they can achieve this. Many people believe women should be free from inequality in the home and workforce, but not in affirmative action. Whether you think their conclusions are wrong or not, what I’ve seen here is the immediate labelling of someone who thoughtfully, respectfully disagrees with aspects of affirmative action to be an ignorant, selfish, offensive troublemaker who seeks to drag people down in ‘unproductive arguments’.
The stereotype of evangelicals is that they refuse to dialogue– but how can they when you don’t allow them to? As someone who is, as I always say “too liberal to be conservative, too conservative to be liberal”, I find the general tone of the responses on this blog to be very disappointing and honestly, quite hurtful. (Although Julie, I appreciate that you appreciate my honesty and I truly hope I’m not out of line by saying this)
For however much you speak of compassion for those who are different from you, it seems to me that it all only occurs on the ‘big picture’ (systemic) level for you. The one who falls into a different category on an ethnic/religious level. But sometimes I think we also need to remember that the ‘othering’ could well occur on a personal level, the ‘other’ could be the one we disagree with, the one we cannot see eye to eye with, the one we wish would just go away because their ideology is not in line with your values.
Karl, I get what you’re trying to do and I appreciate the points you have raised– these are important things to discuss. But I can’t help but feel too that if Julie feels that this issue isn’t something that she wants to go into a debate/dialogue on with you– although I understand you must feel that your voice has been completely dismissed– then perhaps it’s probably better to leave it and respect that position. To go on for too long about it would be unproductive. There are many online discussions that would welcome your thoughtful posts.