Allies: The Live Chat

This week, your intrepid bloggers met for a long and wide-ranging chat about allies, privilege, intersectionality, and more, partly in response to this article. We publish the chat here in two parts.

This chat has been edited for clarity and condensed. All views expressed are solely those of the individual blogger.

Update: Part II of this chat can be found here.

Jordan:          Welcome to our live chat! I’m so excited to talk about male allies with y’all.

First, let’s talk about good experiences with male allies. What do they add to the feminist movement? Can you name a specific contribution from a male ally?

Jocelynn:       This has been a question for me throughout my academic career. On the one hand, we want to have safe spaces for women to be able to open up to share and support each other. But the other reality I’ve experienced is that we (unfortunately or not) need men to move things forward. They need to give up some power/privilege to make space for women & others at the table. So I think we need allies but it’s a tough balance. We really need men who understand the difference between being an ally and trying to define feminism for themselves.

Robert:          I wonder about how helpful I can be on my own as a male ally. While I might have more privilege in a conversation, feminism needs a critical mass of folk to really create social pressure. Because I still find that I can be written off by those who have no good faith interest in learning about feminism.

Jordan:           So you find that you can easily be written off as “not a real man” or “duped by feminists”?

Robert:           Duped/deluded would be words I think others would use to describe me. “Difference of opinion” is thrown around a lot. Mostly I get what I’ve written about before: men do not think they are actively contributing to misogyny.

Jocelynn:        I think that’s a real challenge because men who would challenge or disrupt the patriarchy face the same threats (physical and verbal) as women do. So there is a real risk to them.

Jordan:           I don’t know that it’s the same threats. Some threat, certainly. But look at #GamerGate – men who push back against the gamers are trolled but not doxxed or sent death threats like the women.

Robert:           I think men are more likely to get discredited/shamed/threatened/diminished before being physically threatened. There seem to be a few more steps on a spectrum of response before men have to deal with death threats. But I do think there is some risk to being a visible male ally particularly in online settings where anonymity is the rule.

Jocelynn:        When my husband and I were dating, he was playing hockey for his college. We were apart – he lived in Florida and I in Connecticut. At the end of the season, the coach told the team they would have their end of the year party at [a restaurant featuring scantily clad female waitstaff] because they were a team sponsor. He publicly stood up and said he wouldn’t go because he felt they were degrading to women. His teammates and coach laughed, but the coach said he had to be there (he was the starting goalie, and as such, had a particular place in the hierarchy of the team). He said he wouldn’t go, and he was called a fagg*t and all kinds of slurs by the team. But there were also players who admired him, in a way. Some said he did it because of me, or because I told him to which was absolutely false.

Jordan:          But even if that had been true, wouldn’t that have been ok? Like, that plays into patriarchy too, this idea that husbands of women shouldn’t listen to their wives or respect their wishes.

Jocelynn:        Exactly.

Robert:          There is this pressure men feel to not be “whipped.”

Jordan:           A guy who does what his wife/girlfriend asks is whipped. A wife/girlfriend who patiently puts up with her husband/boyfriend is a good partner.

Robert:           The ideal woman in fact. Proverbs 31 and all that.

Jocelynn:        They were talking like I had brainwashed or yes, “whipped” him, but we had had conversations about [this restaurant] and he already felt that it was a bad place, and in some ways to be with me gave him space to acknowledge his real feelings.

Jordan:           I wonder if being with feminists, either as a romantic partner or as a friend or colleague can give men words to express feelings they’ve long held about the injustice of the patriarchy.

Jocelynn:        Yes!

Jordan:           Like, they knew it was wrong before they knew why it was wrong. And then talking with feminists helps them figure out why it’s wrong and express it intelligently to other men.

Robert:           You know, I often wonder about that. The last ten years of my life have felt like dropping a mask, which included a sense of hypermasculinity. I bet a lot of that had to do with my wife, but many, many other women too. And it’s possible that it happened more by story than theory.

Jordan:           As Christians, I think we know the power of story. I’ve never yet met a Christian who was compelled to be one because of Cyril of Alexandria’s defense of Christ’s dual natures, but rather because of the story of God’s love for the world.

Jocelynn:        Haha there are some students who are wooed by the theology first, but certainly they are few and far between.

                        It seems like the men that “get it” as described in that Slate article about male allies are deep thinkers and tend to be pondering this as their lived experience intersects with their thoughts.

Robert:           I started my Christian walk because of story, came back because of the theology, and am staying because of relationship with the divine.

                        Jocelynn, your mention of that article reminds me of a few things. In seminary, I would hear stories from other white men about how they felt attacked in class. I never felt this way, which is surprising, given my interests. But in any case, my understanding of feminism was that no matter what happened in the classroom, once we walked out that door, privilege would immediately take back over.

Jordan:          Did they ever talk to you about why they felt attacked?

Robert:          Things like people saying “check your privilege” as a trump card in any discussion.

But I really mean *as soon* as I left the classroom – the Ivy League is still deeply bound in sexist, racist, classist patterns.

Jordan:           I had an experience like that at seminary as well. While putting together a worship service for Black History Month, I sought advice and help from a few black students I knew well. Hearing their feedback was hard. They were actively being as kind as they could be, but listening to them describe the latent racism they had seen in my words hurt bad. But when that conversation was over, I could’ve ignored them. I still had that privilege. None of the white people who would be the primary congregation for the worship service would have noticed what they noticed. No consequences would have followed for me. So as much as it sucked to be called out like that, I still had so much power.

                        Later that spring, I wrote a Blues Tenebrae connecting the Cross and the lynching tree. Holy Wednesday was the same day as the anniversary of the martyrdom of Dr. King that year, and I used a lot of his words, as well as James Cone’s newest work, The Cross and the LynchingTree. After the service, one of those black students came up to me to say, “Now, didn’t that feel different? See how good it can be.”

Jocelynn:       Wow!

Robert:          I’m glad to hear that because the Tenebrae service was fantastic.

Jocelynn:       There is an apocryphal story about a famous feminist theologian who, when she’d teach or give a public lecture, would tell men to put their hands down, because she only takes questions from women. There are plenty of profs who would answer men’s questions, go to them.

Robert:          Jocelynn, that is quite a story … wow.

Jocelynn:        I know, on the one hand I want to cheer, on the other it’s like ouch. And she has a level of privilege to be able to do that, right?

Robert:           For me, it’d be like, do I trust male professors as much as I trust a feminist theologian on this particular subject.

Jordan:          So often, particularly in the church, we say “two wrongs don’t make a right”, whether it’s calling God by feminine pronouns, or privileging women’s voices in a particular conversation or setting.

Jocelynn:        Yep! And yet ….

Jordan:           Sometimes I’m like, “When we’ve called God ‘she’ for 2,000 years, let’s talk. Or when we’ve said ‘peace on earth, goodwill toward women’ every Christmas for generations. When our entire society has been reoriented around privileging women, when women have equality or superiority in even one sphere, then we can talk about how two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Jocelynn:       Well, the question of pronouns is always interesting for me. People often say that the male centric language “doesn’t matter.” So if it doesn’t matter, then we can use feminine language, right? Apparently not.

Robert:           Going back to the public space and conversation bit:  this is how new I am to this more public advocacy and space-creating for women. When I published a post a few months ago, I specifically said that it was not a space to make a “not all men” argument. I didn’t deny men space to talk. At. All. I simply carved out one line of argument as out of bounds. Which two men ignored.  So I get what the theologian might have been going for in terms of setting the bounds for a conversation.

Jocelynn:       I think that’s the key difference with someone who is an ally – as Jordan found in her experience above. You have to be willing to *really* listen to the Other and hear what they are saying and then potentially revise yourself in response.

Robert:          Yes! It is a really hard thing to do: maintain humility without defensiveness in light of criticism about things you either cannot see or are actively trying to work on.

Jordan:          I think in America we have this robust free speech tradition that is so awesome, but in practice means that some voices are privileged above others. And as soon as you try to carve out a space for less-frequently-heard voices, more privileged voices come in and shout censorship.

                        In fact, the more privilege they have in the first place, the more likely they are to shout censorship, because they’re so used to being heard that they cannot fathom a space where their voices are unwelcome.

Jocelynn:        Bingo to you both!

                        What’s worse is the men that *think* they are allies and then dominate the conversation. And sometimes that means allies who have good things to say have to be quiet for a bit. Which is, I think, what that theologian was getting at in a crass way.

The conversation continues with Part II of Allies: The Live Chat.

Affirmative Consent aka Yes Means Yes

As the Lutheran Episcopal Chaplain at UC Davis, legislation was recently passed in California that directly affects the university and students I serve.  SB 967 aka the “Yes Means Yes” law, was signed by Governor Brown, thus putting a new way of charting and evaluating sexual interactions on campuses into place.

The previous standard, “No Means No,” presupposed that the victim of a sexual assault must have said no to the activity or did something to indicate the interaction was unwanted.  That is, she or he had to show evidence of a struggle or non-compliance (bruises, scratches, etc.).  But not all instances of sexual assault leave such marks.  If a victim was threatened, there may not have been a struggle (or affirmative no).  If a victim was severely intoxicated or unconscious, then there would be no evidence of a struggle.  And victims have also described simply being in such a state of shock or terror that they neither stated no or fought back in a way that the legal system deemed to be a ‘no’ response.  Thus, victims who were left with no bruises or no evidence of having said no faced an unfair uphill battle to prove the sexual contact was unwanted.  Likewise, alleged perpetrators have argued that since there was no struggle or indication the victim didn’t want it, they supposed what they were doing was ok.

This bill seeks to change that.  In the midst of physical encounters, this bill now requires that students receive consent at every point, and understand that consent can be withdrawn at any point.  The text of the law defines affirmative consent as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity.”  It also reiterates that someone who is intoxicated, unconscious, incapacitated, or asleep cannot give consent.  This is the standard of consent that colleges and universities must now use when investigating allegations of sexual assault.  The National Coalition of Men opposed the bill, saying that it is impossible for an accused man to prove that he secured consent.  So, is this a step forward or backward in protecting women and men from sexual assault?

Certainly, this isn’t the first time a policy like this has been proposed or enacted.  Back in the mid 90s, I remember discussing a college whose student handbook similarly required that sexual interactions receive consent at each step in the process.  In theory, it does seem empowering since it takes a much more positive view of human sexuality, seeking affirmation and checking and double checking that what is happening is acceptable to all participants.  If implemented, situations of rape and especially acquaintance rape, would decrease since if consent is withdrawn at any point, the interaction must stop.  And utilizing this as the standard when investigating an alleged rape does remove the need for the victim to prove through bodily harm that the contact was unwanted.

As a chaplain, it opens up space to talk about what is healthy in sexual relationships, and gives students a chance to be thoughtful about their bodies and how they communicate their intentions with one another.  Indeed, this law alone will not stop rapists from raping.  But hopefully it will lead students to be more intentional about how they proceed in intimate encounters.  And it sets a different standard for how rape allegations should be investigated.  It will be interesting to see how this changes the conversation about sexual interactions and the judicial process on college campuses.  

What online communities can show us about the principalities and powers

tw: sexual harassment, gendered slurs

From Slate: 

...Actress Emma Watson gave a speech supporting the HeForShe campaign, a project run by UN Women in support of women's equality around the globe. Watson, in her role as a Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women, denounced the negative impact that rigid gender roles have on both men and women. 

You can see the speech here. And what was interesting about the speech was that--to my ears--the speech was not incredibly radical.  Watson spoke of the need for gender equality in explicitly 'equalist' terms--as opposed to giving any indication of supporting a type of feminism that misogynists fear:  namely an inversion of power in which women can enact upon men that which men enact upon women.  (Interestingly enough, this fear of an inversion of power is when one can see that men who deny the existence of sexism actually know exactly what it is.  We see the same thing along any axis of privilege/oppression.)  Watson also mentioned the problems men face in a world in which gender expression and roles are so constricted.  She talks of specific instances where she has seen the harm "being a man" does to men.  Men are also made to fit in a small box of approved expressions and roles or men face the consequences of being seen as effeminate, weak, unmanly.  She explicitly notes that she would like men to take up the call of the HeForShe campaign because doing so will benefit both our future daughters and sons.

She also speaks of the moments in which she realized she was coming around to feminism, mentioning how "at 14, I started being sexualized by certain elements of the media." I will also mention that I remember what I read on social media the day she turned 18. It wasn't pretty.

The reaction from a certain website 4chan--which was where the recently stolen celebrity photos found a platform for being viewed--was rather swift and is particularly egregious.  It was also odd.  A site was started that showed a five day countdown, and after those five days it was threatened that they would publish nude photos of Emma Watson.  This news was met on 4chan and Reddit with glee, and a particularly good write-up from Vox (go read it!) on the issue gives an example of a particularly cruel and graphic comment one man made--as well as his hope that such a leak would end Watson's "career" as a feminist.

It is worth noting that while the threat to release those photos was a hoax, the reaction to the prospect of Emma Watson being "put in her place" was not. There might be a temptation to write the incident off as inconsequential since it came to nothing, but the 4chan and reddit reactions were real, and hideous.

To which I'll make two short observations:

1. It was not always known to be a hoax, and to be a woman speaking on feminist issues publicly in spite of the threats that one will probably receive is quite brave.  Rape threats are quite common, sexist screeds even more so.  (Witness the abuse Anita Sarkeesian recieves.)  Cursory Facebook and Youtube use will show it to be true that the comments men leave on any article having to do with feminism will justify the existence of feminism.
2. That it was believable--and that it has happened before--that men were planning to use sexual shame as a tool to silence a woman actually gives weight to Emma Watson's and feminism's claims about the state of the world's gender politics.

From the same Slate article as mentioned above, Amanda Marcotte writes that

Though there’s no way to know if this is a real threat, or just an ugly prank, Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan captured some 4chan users explicitly suggesting nude photo leaks to punish Watson for her outspoken feminism. "That feminist bitch Emma is going to show the world she is as much of a whore as any woman," wrote one. "She makes stupid feminist speeches at UN, and now her nudes will be online, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH," wrote another.

In addition to the clock the website features a photo of Watson wiping away tears. The choice is a telling one, demonstrating that the point of releasing these photos—or threatening to—is not the pleasure of seeing someone naked. After all, there are millions of images of naked women who happen to be consenting available online. It's about getting those tears, the pleasure of hurting and humiliating a woman who offended you by being unobtainable, and by standing up for other women.

Marcotte is bringing up a good point, even though she wrote this piece before it was known that the site was a hoax.  The threatened photo release--through the approval it was receiving from those who thought it real and justified--showed that the mindset of the supporters of the leak was not primarily about gratifying anyone's prurient interest.  The point would have been specifically to punish Watson for speaking out.¹  Like most gendered violence, the very real support for the fake threat to release nude photos was the outworking of power, not simply lust. And it is important to call demons by their proper name (Mk 5:9).

The apostle Paul speaks in his letters of the "principalities and powers."² By this Paul means the  spiritual and worldly forces that exist in opposition to God.  For it is Christ through whom all things were created and exist--whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-- but the good news is that Christ has disarmed these powers and authorities through his life and death (Col 1:16, 2:15). The greatness and goodness of God is at work through and in Christ, who is placed above the principalities and powers (Eph 1:20-23).  The Church's role is one of proclaiming God's power and testifying to God's coming reign to these spiritual forces (Eph 3:7-12).  And the promise we inherit is the coming complete destruction of these forces-- "every ruler and every authority and power"-- at the consummation of history (1 Cor 15:24-28).

One way in which I define the powers and principalities are that they are those practices and ideas which foster impediments to seeing all as equally beloved and redeemed by God, meaning that there is little drive to foster the reconciliation Christians are called to witness to (2 Cor 5:14-21).  They could be spiritual or simply the mundanely human outworking of our desire for power and control in the face of uncertainty (which will have a spiritual impact).  Further, for the principalities and powers, there is little concern to active hostility to the equality of all before God (Gal 3:28) and the role of women in places beyond where society would deem them welcome (consider Jesus' relationship to women in the Gospel, as well as women's roles in Paul's letters and in Acts).   Colonialism, sexism, racism, and homophobia all fall within the control of principalities and powers that devalue the beloved of God while teaching others that they have a divine right to maintain an oppressive social order "for the good of us all."  Control is sanctified in lieu of holiness, forbearance, love, and grace.  The principalities and powers instead resort to threat, harm, shame and death.   You can know who you are dealing with by the fruits they produce.

It is not uncommon to hear Episcopalians talk about social issues and the role of a Christian in terms of the Baptismal Covenant's questions asked of all who seek right relationship with God--and two questions in particular: "Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons?" and "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"  I'd like to suggest that the impulse to social justice in general, and sexism in particular, does not begin at these two questions.  The impulse begins with the recognition that there are realities of this world we must renounce before we make these promises.

Our desire to do God's work in the world should imply the desire to throw off that which impedes that work.  In the Baptismal service, two of the three renunciations immediately come to mind:  "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?" and "Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?"  These renunciations speak of throwing off the world's claims about the proper place of others and seeking instead to discern the wild and radical things God chooses to do with the unlikely in order to confound the wise and powerful.  It means de-centering the will to power (think Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (Mt 4:1-11)) in favor of God's will and mission for humanity.

Here's the point.  Whenever you see the use of terroristic violence, shame, and belittlement against anyone, you are seeing the powers and principalities at work, as well as the all too human desire for power.  And what was witnessed on 4Chan and Reddit in these particular instance--and many others--was the outworking of the desire to control through punishment.  All because one woman in a very public way said all women and men were equal.

It was flat-out sexism.

And it is important to call demons by their names.
______________________

¹ What wasn't a hoax, however, was the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian for her work in engaging video games through the lens of feminist inquiry.  The abuse that she recieved in digital venues which threatened to become all too real speaks to ways in which the treatment of women in the digital landscape mirrors "the real world."   Catherine Buni and Soraya Chemaly write for The Atlantic:

If, as the communications philosopher Marshall McLuhan famously said, television brought the brutality of war into people’s living rooms, the Internet today is bringing violence against women out of it. Once largely hidden from view, this brutality is now being exposed in unprecedented ways. In the words of Anne Collier, co-director of ConnectSafely.org and co-chair of the Obama administration’s Online Safety and Technology Working Group, “We are in the middle of a global free speech experiment.” On the one hand, these online images and words are bringing awareness to a longstanding problem. On the other hand, the amplification of these ideas over social media networks is validating and spreading pathology.

In other words, the internet and real life are not that different. The two connect because those same people who interact online exist in the world, too. The difference is that the persons who threaten others online might hold in their vitriol in real life for fear of social consequence.  Yet it must be noted that the same folks who threaten violence against women in digital forums likely interact with women in the real world.  That is not a pleasant reality to think about.

² As the KJV puts it; "powers" and "authorities" in the NRSV.  For the purposes of this piece, the authorship of the Pauline canon is not going to be addressed.

Abuse, Forgiveness, and Inequality

In the past few weeks, headlines have been filled with stories about various famous NFL players caught in the midst of scandal: Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens was suspended from the NFL after video of him knocking his then fiancé, now wife, unconscious in an elevator surfaced.  And Adrian Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings has also been suspended from his team after pictures of him “disciplining” his four year old son with a switch went public.  It has been shocking to watch fans of both players continuing to wear their jerseys and pronounce “support” for them, although for different reasons.  How do we, as Christians, approach these situations?  How do we analyze the actions and reactions in light of our call to love and forgive people, and to root out injustice in order to uplift the oppressed?

Ray Rice

The NFL made the decision to suspend Ray Rice for two games when he was arrested for domestic violence against his then fiancé.  Many people publically questioned if this punishment was serious enough, given the charges and severity of the crime.  But then, a few months later, the video of him punching her in the face and being knocked unconscious hit the internet, and the NFL was forced to respond.  He was cut from the Ravens and suspended indefinitely by the NFL.  His [now] wife, Janay, who was the victim of his violence, immediately condemned these sanctions, saying, “I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare... No one knows the pain that [the] media & unwanted options from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret every day is a horrible thing. To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass [off] for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific…”

Many have wondered how she could defend him (never mind marry him) after Rice rendered her unconscious.  This led to the twitter hashtags #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft.  The reality is, 1 in 5 women in this country are victims of domestic violence and leaving the relationship can be more perilous than staying in it.  Women stay for many reasons including: love, children, financial security, feeling isolated, low self-esteem, the list goes on.  Women who leave often risk poverty, greater financial difficulties, and even an increased possibility the violence will escalate.

I don’t know Janay Rice, so I can’t try to guess what her motivations are.  In her statement, she indicates she loves him, and that the incident is something they continue to regret (that is: perhaps he is sorry for it?).  Fans have flooded message boards and done media interviews often with similar thoughts: while what he did was wrong, she forgave him, married him – so why shouldn’t we?  Other NFL players have done time in prison for their crimes and still play in the NFL (ahem, Michael Vick).  Should we (the public and the NFL) forgive Ray Rice?

This brings up important theological issues.  Certainly, each Sunday during worship (in the Episcopal and Lutheran traditions), we have some time of silence to reflect on our sins, and then we say a confessional prayer together, in which we acknowledge our sins and say we are sorry to God.  And then the priest pronounces absolution (forgiveness) to the congregation – assures them that if they are truly penitent (sorry) then God forgives their sins.  But the crux of that statement is IF s/he is truly penitent.  As a priest, it’s impossible to judge what is going on in someone’s heart – if s/he is really sorry.  So we emphasize the IF – if s/he is truly sorry, then her/his sins are absolved.

Perhaps Janay believes Rice is truly sorry and she has forgiven him.  Certainly, as Christians, we are called to forgive: “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” we constantly pray.  We are sinners, and as such we hurt each other, and we turn away from God.  This happens on a daily basis for each of us.  However, because the psychology of domestic violence is so complex, it is simply not possible to say ‘she forgave him, so we should too.’  We don’t know why she is staying with him.  She may not even be clear on why she is staying with him.  God certainly will forgive him if he is truly sorry, and part of being truly sorry is to not remain in that sinful state anymore.  There is much he could do as a public figure to show his repentance and sorrow for his actions toward her.  Perhaps his supporters feel he has demonstrated that.  Part of what is troubling is his and Janay’s response to the sanctions that he has been given in response to his behavior.

Indeed, apparently, what Janay is upset about is the punishment that has resulted from this incident.  While we often talk about “judge not lest ye be judged,” and “vengeance is mine says the LORD,” there is also precedent in the bible of using punishment in order to correct wayward behavior (see the Hebrew Exile).  What is just punishment for someone in this instance?  Analyzing the power dynamics, as a football player and athlete, Rice surely has great physical strength – perhaps much more than an average man.  He also wields a large salary and social power through being a well-known public figure.  She is probably not as strong as he is, and likely she depends on him financially.  Additionally, they have a child together, and so their roles as parents play into the power dynamic as well.  Another video was released showing her possibly provoking him before he punches her.  Did she then deserve his retaliation? 

In terms of the power dynamics, the answer is absolutely not.  His physical strength undoubtedly overpowers hers.  Women should not hit men, as truly no one should hit anyone (we learn that at toddlers, right?  Don’t hit.  Period.).  But the inequality of physical size and strength between them is particularly problematic.

And perhaps part of what people are responding to in this instance is he didn’t just hit her, he knocked her unconscious, meaning a blow with a particularly strong amount of force.  A blow to the head (as any football player should know) is dangerous and potentially life threatening.  So this is a serious crime.  But is it serious enough for him to lose his career over?

That might be where it is difficult to judge.  Certainly, the National Organization of Women (NOW) has called for the resignation of Commissioner Roger Godell, citing his ineffective leadership and decision making throughout this situation.  NOW argues that domestic violence is a real problem among NFL players, and the league has not done enough to end it.  Thus, there is a reality – from a justice standpoint – that the NFL must get it’s house in order.  If domestic violence is not acceptable (it isn’t), then there must be mechanisms to punish and deter those who would engage in that kind of violence.  As Christians who care about justice and the inequalities that occur when wealthy professional athletes are able to exploit their privilege to abuse women, it is important to hold the perpetrators accountable – both the abusers and the systems that allow them to continue to be wealthy and famous.

And, we need to approach Janay (and their child) with deep compassion.  What she has experienced is horrific.  Physically, mentally, emotionally painful, and to have it played out on a national stage must be humiliating as well.  Not that she should feel this way – she didn’t ask to be knocked unconscious by her partner in an elevator, and did not deserve that treatment.  But she is staying in the relationship and thus this incident continues to affect her in numerous ways on a daily basis.  We definitely should pray for her and hope that she is seeking and receiving intensive therapy for herself and for them as a couple. 

Adrian Peterson

By now we know that Adrian Peterson disciplines his children by using switches, and doesn’t see a problem with ‘leaving a mark’ on them.  There has been much debate on spanking, as some parents and experts felt and continue to feel that it is an acceptable form of discipline.  Others argue that children should never be hit for any reason.  Some have defended Peterson’s parenting by claiming this is standard discipline in the African American community, and that parents should have the right to discipline their children as they see fit.  Further, numerous adults argue they were punished in similar ways and “learned their lessons,” and “turned out fine.”

Again, what are the power dynamics at play here?  Surely adults are taller and stronger than young children, and control their ability to have access to food, water, shelter, and any number of other privileges (toys, outings with friends, extracurricular activities).  Children’s power mainly manifests itself in their ability to act out in negative ways, or in self-mutilation.  Peterson, as a professional football player, likely possesses a level of strength that surpasses the average adult male.  So the force he would use as he whips a child would be presumably even greater than a man who does not have the kind of physical conditioning and strength he has.  Thus, the amount of force he can inflict blow by blow on a young, small child, is quite considerable.  And, given the photos, did indeed cause extreme pain, cuts, and bruising all over the child’s body.  Some have argued that this was not a spanking, it was a beating.  And yet, there are those who say it is a parent’s prerogative to beat a child if they wish.  Where does this sentiment come from?

Many reference the Bible to condone using physical discipline on children.  Proverbs 13:24 is a go-to verse for this purpose: “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.” (NRSV)  Use a rod to hit and discipline your children, this is commonly interpreted to say.  And there are other verses along these same lines.  Does God want us to hit our children in order to discipline them?

In this much quoted verse, I would place the emphasis on the second half: that those who love their children must discipline them.  There is no denying that historically it has been socially acceptable to physically punish children.  I was spanked as a child.  But God has also endowed humans with the ability to think and research and grow in our knowledge and understanding.  And to date, study after scientific study suggests that there are more effective methods of discipline than spanking and that it harms children in numerous ways.  Opponents of spanking argue that hitting a child sends confusing signals – telling them it’s not acceptable to hit or be violent to a peer, and then to hit and be violent toward them as discipline only shows that, actually, this kind of violence is acceptable when one with great power and physical strength is using it against someone smaller and less powerful.  This is clearly problematic.  Countless experts and professional medical organizations now encourage parents to utilize other forms of discipline, rather than spanking.  Is this contrary to Proverbs 13:24?  No.  The verse is urging parents to discipline their children because they love them.  If we now have solid evidence of a better way to do so than ‘using a rod,’ then theologically we are beholden to use it.  To use a ‘different rod,’ if you will - the rod of time out or loss of privileges, etc.  Those rods are effective forms of punishment that don’t leave the physical and potentially emotional scars of a spanking or beating.

And that’s really why spanking is problematic.  Usually when a parent is disciplining a child, her anger level is elevated – potential highly elevated.  It may be tempting in the heat of the moment for a spanking to cross a line into a beating.  It’s hard for a parent to know how much force he is using and how it is affecting the body of the child receiving it.  Good parents want to discipline their children so that the memory of the consequence sticks so they will make better choices in the future.  But physically harming their child is not usually the goal of such a parent, and yet can happen all too easily in a situation like Peterson’s.  Indeed, Peterson himself confessed to his wife in a text message that he may have beat his son too hard.  He knew he had crossed a line.

Jesus abhorred violence.  He was constantly telling his disciples not to fight, and not to defend him through force.  It’s hard if not impossible to argue that he would have condoned hitting a child, for any reason.  Indeed, we as Christians do have the responsibility to discipline our children (“discipline” comes from the same root as “disciple”), thus we are called to follow the example of how Jesus treated people, and yes, how he treated his own disciples.  True, the disciples were adults, not children in need of maturity and growth.  But he felt a responsibility to them, as parents do toward children.  Responsibility is different than ownership, and while a parent is responsible for their children – for teaching them and raising them to be good adults, they must be treated humanely and decently.  Parents do not have the right to do whatever they want to a child, which is why there are laws against abusing children and government agencies to protect children from parents and other adults who would harm them.  These provisions exist because children are vulnerable and powerless, and are in need of protection from some adults.  Yes, parents have leeway in making decisions about how to raise their children, but if we understand children as being gifted to us by God (whether through biology or adoption) then we realize that as adults our call is to nurture, protect and raise them – that they are God’s children first, and thus that affects how we treat them.  Jesus asked his followers not to use violence against one another, and this holds true for all of God’s children.

How we treat one another is of utmost theological importance, and is at the heart of Christian faith.  The imbalance of power – physically and socially – between men and women, and a father and a son means their interactions must be evaluated in that light and that analysis must come out in favor of protecting the least among us.  The use of physical violence, according to Jesus, is never acceptable. Indeed, we must learn and grow from our mistakes, and part of that growth must be to show how we will be different as we move forward.  

"The Conversation You Must Have With Your Sons"

tw: rape,  rape culture

Carina Kolodny recently wrote a piece for the Huffington Post  titled "The Conversation You Must Have with Your Sons."

I was reminded of this piece earlier today, when I had a somewhat rare opportunity to sit in a church not my own--even a denomination not my own.  While sitting through the service, I noticed the teenaged boy in front of me kept touching the teenaged girl next to him.  Every time, she would push his hand away.  This went on for about ten minutes, and after the third time--with increasing protestation on her part--I started looking for a break in the liturgy to lean over and tell the boy to stop. 

I do not know what this boy's relationship to the girl was.  I suspect his mother was sitting on the other side of him based on their interaction, and so the young(er?) girl may have been his sister.  It really does not matter.  What was going on was one example of the small ways in which consent is overridden and ignored.  Clear 'no's' were disregarded.
 
Even as the piece has the more severe side of the violence spectrum in mind, the central theses and questions have resonance: 

 Your son is coming of age in that culture with those messages swirling around him. You might have raised him in a home that perpetuated that culture without ever intending to or perhaps you raised him in a home that taught values in complete contrast to that culture. The more important question is: did you ever directly tell him to never buy into that culture? Did you ever tell him that culture is unacceptable and WRONG? Did you ever have any of the aforementioned conversations?

And one aspect of that culture--from unwanted teasing and touching in a pew all the way to rape--is the notion that women's bodies do not deserve autonomy, that consent is not important, and that 'no' does not need to be respected.

It reminded me that such a conversation might have benefit  for that teenage boy, and more importantly,  for the women he will interact with in his life.  And as one raising a son, the event was a reminder of my own responsibility for having this conversation.

What does being an ally look like?

These three sites/posts are excellent places to start when it comes to raising consciousness around being a feminist ally.  Much of the advice also carries over to being an ally to other groups who suffer from systemic oppression.

101 Everyday Ways for Men to Be Allies to Women

Resources for Allies from Geek feminism Wiki,which has a lot of Feminism 101 material.

"So You Call Yourself an Ally: 10 Things All ‘Allies’ Need to Know" from Everyday Feminist.

On Nudity, Privacy, and Consent

Last week, nude photos of several famous women were stolen from the "cloud", that nebulous storage facility. It is still not clear whether these photos were hacked from individual iDevices or from the cloud itself, but the photos were certainly obtained without the consent of the women in them, and almost certainly obtained illegally. Most of the coverage of this theft (and subsequent unauthorized distribution of the photos) has thankfully focused the blame where it belongs: on the hackers, who stole these women's personal property and invaded their privacy, and on the websites hosting these photos, who refuse to take them down due to some complicated legal shenanigans that make it harder to take down illegally obtained nude photos than potentially copyrighted material. But some of the media frenzy has blamed these women, stating that they should not have taken nude photos in the first place, or that having taken the nude photos they should not have stored them in the cloud (as if that's easy). Others have said that they are celebrities and should shrug off this involuntary porn as simply one of the challenges they face in their profession (as if only celebrities suffer from the unauthorized distribution of their private nude images).

The Church, whether it publicly condemns this event or not, is in some way responsible for the latter interpretation of this scandal. After all, many women who have been victimized find themselves condemned by the Church for their behavior. The first thing we need to say is that nudity is not, on its own, a sin. After all, Adam and Eve were created and lived in Eden naked, and it was only after they ate the fruit of the tree (that is, only *after* they had already sinned), that they became ashamed of that condition. One could interpret the Scripture as saying that their shame about their bodies was among the sins they invited into their lives by disobeying God and eating the fruit.

So if nudity isn't a sin, is sharing that nudity (consensually) a sin? We know that for at least one of these women, the photos were created within the covenant of marriage. Assuming that there was no coercion involved in their creation, that seems entirely sinless. As for the others, we cannot comment on the quality of the relationship that engendered their creation, nor do we know for a fact that they were intended to be shared with anyone at all. Taking a nude photo for one's own enjoyment can certainly fit within a Christian sexual ethic. Even if they were consensually shared with a loved one to whom these women were not married, is that not a healthier sexual expression for a couple seeking to grow closer than one that involves all of the risks and intimacies of a physical pairing?

Regardless, the proper emphasis for a Christian sexual ethic ought to be on consent. We see in Scripture that God himself has shown us this example. The "power of the Most High" does not overshadow Mary and she does not become pregnant with Jesus until after she has said, "Let it be with me according to your word." It is Mary's consent that initiates the Incarnation of Jesus. Even Abraham - not well known as a particularly sexually ethical man - tells the servant he sends to find a wife for his son that if the woman will not consent to follow him, he is released from his responsibility.

So: nudity ≠ sin. Consensually sharing one's nudity with another = only potentially sinful in certain cases. Stealing private nude images and knowingly sharing them without the owner's consent = definitely sinful. Let's keep the focus where it belongs.

How men benefit from misogyny "free of guilt"

An exculpatory method some men use in conversations around male privilege and misogyny is to say that he or they do not personally contribute to the oppression of women, and so he or they bear no responsibility for the deeds of others. I'd like to address this line of thought.

I’ll approach this point by way of a hypothetical. Suppose there was a man completely free of any misogynistic tendencies. This man goes about his life without incident. But what is happening around him is the ambient level of gendered violence: domestic violence, rape, cat-calling, stalking, sexual harassment, and a number of other overt and unconscious ways other men communicate to women that they are lesser. And women, who know that it’s often safer to give a guy a fake number than refuse to give a number, develop survival techniques because--more often than not--there’s no immediate way to tell the horrible men from the not-horrible men. Women learn that politeness to random men keeps them safe.

In this way, all misogyny is terroristic in that the use of violence seeks to control women individually and as a whole. Women are nice to men in order to survive, because they never know if they will anger the wrong man. (Note: some women act against this tendency, knowing that they do not “owe” men openness to their advances or the time of day. I think that’s courageous on their part.) In any case, the man completely free of misogynistic tendencies benefits from the terroristic violence of misogynistic men because their actions condition women and create the gendered climate around the man free of misogynistic tendencies.

Now suppose the man free of misogynistic tendencies never notices how the patterns of violence color his interactions with women. Technically he is not guilty of any act in particular, but his lack of knowledge keeps him from contributing to the lessening of the misogynistic environment, even as he benefits from it in small ways.

But suppose the man free of misogynistic tendencies discovers how women are being treated, and can connect how women are treated to his own ease in existing in the world and in interactions with women.

Now there is a choice: If we assume misogyny is bad, and should not exist, the man can either choose not to act or contribute in small ways to challenging misogyny. The choice not to act is something I would consider a refusal to do the good when the good is entirely possible.

But that notion of terroristic violence is where I am coming from when I say that all men benefit from the misogynistic violence of a few men. Women do not want to become victims of men, have no way of telling which men are likely to become violent, and act accordingly. Men benefit from this social arrangement, often without seeing it.

However, living in the society we do, this hypothetical man does not exist. And all of us participate in sinful social structures built on the domination of others to some extent. A repudiation of participation in those structures and the active attempt to dismantle them is to turn toward holiness.

NPR is running a series on sexual assault on college campuses

...Which you can hear here.

On the Rules We Follow

TW: rape culture, victim blamimg

Every woman I know has a system. She has worked it out in her head how to keep herself safe. How to protect herself from assault. Each system is different – and sometimes isn’t based in sound principles for actual safety. But it’s often less about actual safety than about being able to prove to the authorities, to our friends, to ourselves that we did everything we could to keep it from happening. That we tried our hardest, that we fought back, that we took precautions, that we weren’t drunk, that we didn’t lead him on, that we didn’t, that we didn’t, that we didn’t – so it wasn’t our fault.

I didn’t always know that other women had this system. I used to think it was only me who arranged for friends to call me and check in when I was alone with a man I didn’t know well in my apartment, whether that man was the plumber or a new friend from grad school. I used to think it was only me who intentionally brought up a married man’s spouse’s name in private conversation, in order to remind him that he was married. I used to think it was only me who made sure a professor’s door was cracked open, that he wasn’t the only one in that hall during our meeting, that someone was expecting me shortly after office hours. Only me who called my fiancé while walking from my parking spot into my building, even though I knew it was riskily distracting, because I wanted someone to hear if something happened. Only me who stopped make-out sessions earlier than I wanted to because I was afraid if we continued he wouldn’t hear my “no” when it came to the point. Only me who only got drunk when with a large group of friends where at least one woman was sober. Only me who rethought that tweet because of the risk of getting “doxed” by some internet troll who decided I offended him so much I deserved to be raped to death.

It’s not only me. I am not especially paranoid for a woman. I am cautious, but I am not alone. My sisters do this too. We talk about ways to check under your car in case someone’s hiding down there to grab your ankle. Ways to hold your keys to jab someone in a soft place. How to escape to the bathroom for an emergency phone call if a date won’t leave your apartment. Who’s going to be the “mom” of the group at the bar, making sure everyone else is safe. And even if we are fortunate enough that we escape harassment or assault, we spend so much of our mental energy thinking about ways to protect ourselves that we can’t think about other things. This system of sexual violence keeps us from living where we want, walking where we want, working where we want, trusting men we date, staying out as late as we please.

Even women who’ve never been raped think every day about what they must do to prevent it. Not only because we don’t want to be raped (though certainly that too), but also because we know that if we let our guard down, even once, and something terrible happens, it will be our fault. Not only in the eyes of the authorities (who prosecute less than 10% of rapes), or in the eyes of the community, but in our own eyes. We’re good girls. We follow the rules.