No such luck!
Or else RantWoman should think in more depth about this item composting the ramblings of one of the people RantWoman currently has great difficulty discerning that of God within and summoning Dietrich Bonhoffer's writings about suffering and standing alongside the suffering. http://blog.sojo.net/2010/07/21/glenn-beck-and-the-foolishness-of-the-cross/ . Despite this item's efforts to universalize traditionally feminine attributes such as humility and suffering, RantWoman is having a good bit of trouble about anything that fetishizes suffering, as if there is not already enough suffering in the world. RantWoman supposes it would at least be sporting to elaborate a little on the problems she is having and how this relates to problems with traditionally Christian ideals. Doing that would be way too tidy; RantWoman is a Quaker partly because she feels license to leave her muddled half-formed spiritual questions all over the blogosphere while she figures out where it is she is going.
Meanwhile, RantWoman is going to attempt something she is better at, cataloging further queries and observations.
RantWoman was packing her brain cells and centering her heart and aiming to get grounded in preparation for her upcmoning journey to the NPYM Annual Session in Missoula, MT. As with almost everything in the world of RantWoman tidy intellectual packing is easier said than done. Consider the recent Pacific Northwest Quaker Women's Theology Conference and thoughts of what openings one wants to encounter to talk about Sexism.
Okay, RantWoman really actually does NOT want to talk about sexism. RantWoman wishes sexism did not exist and that all were smooth and hunky-dory and that RantWoman could expend her energy on all the other prickly matters in the RantWoman bouquet of frequent aggravations. Alas, along come the following comments on posting of the PNWQWTC epistle .
Houston, we have a problem!
What problem could we possibly have if two guys RantWoman knows generally to be thoughtful and intelligent are posting things that sound sympathetic about the problem of sexism at least to start?
RantWoman is a generous soul. We actually have two problems. First, the PNWQWTC epistle mentions sexism but does not spell out any specific moments upon which to hang conversation. The second problem is that the comments RantWoman read do not really back up sympathy with very active engagement about what is meant and what we wish to go away. Not surprisingly then sexism is treated as an abstraction that will passively just go away with spiritual transformation rather than as something that rquires specific human engagement to eliminate.
RantWoman's basic questions, pre-annual session:, with the caveat that "we" has various referents
--Does there need to be conversation within NPYM specifically about sexism within NPYM?
--Are Quaker testimonies about equality and historical practice supporting the equality of women alive in the lives of our MonthlyMeetings and Worship Groups today?
--Do women recognize internalized sexism among ourselves or other women?
--Do we as women have a sense that at least some men will recognize sexist behavior and call other men on it? Does it matter whether problems are identified as sexism as long as problematic behavior is identified and those involved get called on it? Are there otherspecific things we might want to ask of men in our struggles against sexism?
--Do we expect different things of ourselves or others based on age, profession, role among Friends as well as gender?
--Do we have a sense that our Monthly Meetings, Worship Groups and other bodies have the tools to deal with abusive behaviors rooted in sexism or otherwise?--Do we have experiences or impressions that would benefit from moreconversations, either private or public?
There are a few different reasons RantWoman asks
:--The conference epistle mentioned sexism in the Religious Society ofFriends but was not terribly specific. Mention of the topic certainly invites further conversation, but does not immediately suggest topics to have conversations about.
--RantWoman had one conversation with a Friend who has lots of experience working iwth AFSC. She spoke of how even years ago at public events she and her male counterpart would make a specific effort to call on equal numbers of men and women but that women do not necessarily raise their hands to comment in public. This experience matches RantWoman's impressions from many more contemporary events among Friends and otherwise, but RantWoman wonders whether other women thing this behavior is a problem? RantWoman has observed that sometimes the very women who will not raise their hands in large fora will nevertheless immediately track down speakers for deep but less public conversations.
--RantWoman has been thinking fondly of one Friend who comes sometimes to NPYM Annual Session who has a T-shirt that says "Real Men listen." As with all evangelizing, RantWoman has the sense that his message takes root unevenly but she admires him for repeatedly bringing the message.
--RantWoman has personally been involved in extended conversation with one Friend who listens badly,declares whole swaths of topics and experience off-limits or irrelevant and then demands to have a conversation in his terms. Some of the conversational patterns involved are patterns noticeable among other men. In fact, even though this Friend seems powerless over these tendencies in himself, this Friend in lecture mode even rattles off the patterns as part of dynamics in conflict. There is extensive academic research about men and women having different styles in conversation, sometimes different ways of presenting narrative and a whole host of things that RantWoman does not necessarily consider problematic, but there are some other demeaning elements RantWoman consider blatant sexism though simply using that term is not necessarily helpful in terms of figuring out what actually needs to be done for sensible conversation.
--Rantwoman has a long personal list of issues and behaviors that annoy her but also finds less unambiguous and less clear-cut than in her more strident youth about many issues.
So what actually transpired at Annual Session?
--RantWoman noticed a couple men she sometimes sees alone appeared this time with their female partners. RantWoman is always pleased when couples have spiritual life together and hopes that Annual Session is more fun in the company of one's beloved.
--RantWoman went to breakfast Bible study every morning except the day she overslept. RantWoman noticed that, except for Bible Study Friend who organizes this, lots of women participate but men never seem to show up. RantWoman decided she does not even care about this gender imbalance for a couple different reasons. First, RantWoman needs to take her Bible study where she finds it. Discussion is always lively and rich. Most interestingly, Bible Study Friend always shows up on time and Mrs. Bible Study Friend who seems often to have other responsibilities and obligations before she can sit down comes later. When Mrs. Bible Study Friend arrives, it is obvious that the couple have prepared together and RantWoman approves of mixed gender spousal teamwork.
--RantWoman had two conversations with Friend who has a particular ministry where the phrase "male privilege" came up in reference to two different contexts. Anyone want to guess the gender of Friend who has a particular ministry? The gender of the objects of the two conversations?
To be fair, one of the conversations seemed to involve several men much older than the speaking Friend. These men listened with great interest for a good while with only a dollop of male privilege expectation tacked onto a tangential thread at the end. The thought was tacked on in a way that caused RantWoman the catty thought that such attitudes might be one reason Tacking on Friend is currently lacking in female companionship. Ah, the wages of sexism....
--RantWoman is scratching her head about the second Male Privilege Friend. Among his many counterintuitive behaviors is giving messages in worship laced alternately with the language of Torah study and reference to the Goddess. RantWoman supposes that if she herself is going to muddle around several directions herself, she really ought to respect this Friend's spiritual language too; to say the least, RantWoman is still confused by practice no less than language.
Posts
"--RantWoman had two conversations with Friend who has a particular ministry where the phrase "male privilege" came up in reference to two different contexts. Anyone want to guess the gender of Friend who has a particular ministry? The gender of the objects of the two conversations?"
ReplyDeleteOr take bets. Oh, wait, we (Quakers) don't do that.
Facebook status update that never was:
"So-and-so thinks it's probably a good thing someone else already has the nom de blog "RantWoman," else she'd be mighty tempted."
On Second Male Privilege Friend: I just plain do not understand folks, male or female, who pray to the Goddess in English but still pray in male-gendered Hebrew. (On those occasions when I use Hebrew blessings, I use feminized ones.) Unless they are praying to completely separate and distinct deities.
Dealing with gender issues in Hebrew is way beyond my Light. I have enough to do with English and to a lesser degree Spanish or Russian, languages I have actually studied.
ReplyDeleteWell, in Russian, I more often have to explain my take on baptism for the Baptists I sometimes interpret for; I do not know whehter it is good or bad that I mostly never get deep enough to find Russian speakers who use Goddess language deeply rooted in various folk traditions.
As for how any specific person prays, I am always happy to note conundrums. However, since part of the point of faith IS Faith, sometimes peculiarly I find myself more willing to suspend disbelief and try to listen for what is behind a particular way of speaking than to probe for absolute coherence. This is not at all to imply that perhaps a certain Friend might to some degree welcome probes for coherence.
For myself, to some degree at present I seem to be on a journey of unpacking some traits and behaviors deemed traditionally feminine in context of guidance in the Gospels about how everyone is to live. My sense is that there my be pieces of texts to throw across the room in disgust and pieces of text to embrace more deeply than one ever would have thought possible, but right now it's all slow going and I tend to be in the "a little goes a long way" camp about the tempo of such sorting out in the first place.
As for betting, look, I am a Quaker in progress. I am still at this advanced age trying to overcome the peculiar ideas about risk one can develop if one is steeped too deeply in certain forms of Presbyterian certitude. Plus guessing is NOT betting...
"Plus guessing is NOT betting..."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Whereas it's still on the tip of my tongue to say, "Anyone wanna bet..." Speaking of being a Friend in progress! :)
This morning's Light is that a quest for inclusive language, language that reflects the truths of women, not just the generic male is a really important part of many conversations. However it also is RantWoman's experience that personal embrace of such points sometimes comes long after encountering them on an intellectual basis. No idea what that suggests in context of this ministry.
ReplyDeleteRantWoman also remembers a recent radio item about how in languages with gendered nouns (French, German, Spanish....) people tend to ascribe to inanimate objects qualities associated with the gender of the nouns in that language. So for example the word for bridge in German is masculine and bridges are assumed to be sturdy and solid. The word for bridge in French is feminine and therefor bridges are assumed by native French speakers to be delicate and airborne or something. So if one runs out of sexism issues among live beings in one's orbit, one can also take up the cause of the true nature of inanimate objects!?!