Did Someone say SEXISM?

RantWoman is thrilled and blessed (!?!?!) While the Epistle of the Pacific Northwest Quaker Women's Theology Conference makes vague reference to sexism among Friends, RantWoman was having trouble coming up with instances that would be fit for public conversation. By fit for public conversation, RantWoman means public and not laden with content that might tread hard on very personalized nerves.

RantWoman finally has in mind a concrete item of sexism she can foam at the mouth about: a few years ago, the Nominating committee in RantWoman's meeting created a Worship and Ministry committee comprised of six men and NO women. RantWoman remembers seeing the proposed roster and wondering about discernment connected with this.

RantWoman does not remember whether that was one of the years she herself expressed interest in service on said committee or whether that was one of the years when a great deal of RantWoman's physical and mental energy was devoted to activities such as deciding which of several possible eye problems, allergies, and general conniptions was responsible for different kinds of pain in her face. The point is that RantWoman did not at the time voice any objections even though doing so would have been entirely appropriate. This week in connection with again turning over rocks related to a certain compost melodrama, RantWoman slammed into the anoying realization that no one else objected either!

RantWoman remembers having a conversation about gender imbalance on this committee with one of the members of the committee, (Guess which one!) to the effect that the members of the committee thought this gender imbalance was JUST FINE. RantWoman vehemently objected: RantWoman thought it might be fine for, say, one year, but that men and women just communicate too differently and approach problems too differently for this to be reasonable longer than that. The next year, perhaps one woman got added and there have been other increments since so that gender balance is now much better.

RantWoman has not attempted systematic onversation with those on the committee at the time. Part of the reason RantWoman has not attempted systematic conversation is the short snippets of conversation touching on the topic suggest it has never occurred to several of the committee members that they might be missing something, what they might be missing, or that what they are missing might be important.

In fact RantWoman had the kinds of conversations with more than one Friend that made her feel elbowed aside, dismissed as unimportant. RantWoman at the time was in great need of spiritual communion of the educational sort she was having trouble providing herself because of all the changes in her vision. RantWoman was also feeling profoundly grateful for community, imperfect as it was, but as as RantWoman has written elsewhere , RantWoman was not feeling very well-nourished spiritually . To make matters worse, even though the act of being present with difficulties and spiritual needs can bring gifts to whole communities, people in such moments of travail sometimes are too overwhelmed to articulate requests for help.

(To RantWoman's great relief, in the course of conversations over the last year, Nominating Committee got the point of RantWoman's concern and gender balance is now specifically mentioned as desirable in the composition of Worship and Ministry!)

RantWoman is going to spare her readers some foaming about the mouth about what in retrospect seems like misogynist bilge related to communications style during some conversations over the past year with one Friend (Guess which one.) RantWoman is also doing the best she can simply to note that said Friend appears much better able to have two-way conversations with some categories of people (guess which) than others. RantWoman would REALLY like not to have to filter a lot with all this in mind; RantWoman is still a work in progress on the "spirit of love and Truth" front.