Response to “My Brush With Feminism”

Every time I decide to move away from the feminist topic on the blog for awhile, something happens on the internet that makes me go back to it.

The blog Femina Girls recently posted an article by Rebekah Merkle called “My Brush With Feminism.” You’d think it would be about her brush with feminism. It’s actually more of a treatise on what she believes feminism to be, how she thinks it’s wrong, and why she believes blockheaded men are fueling its fires.

My friend and fellow egalitarian blogger Jory Micah wrote a beautiful and intelligent response to Merkle’s article, a response that you should go read immediately. I felt compelled to write, too, because Merkle’s article represents some very typical and regrettable attitudes about feminism from traditional religious camps. I believe that when someone misrepresents Christian feminism as Merkle has done, it’s important for a variety of Christian feminists/egalitarians to chime in and voice the truth of who we are.

Merkle starts off by saying she finds it hilarious when feminists “can’t decide if they’re trying to channel a swaggering machismo persona – or delicate, hyperventilating, victimhood.” The feminist cause, she seems to think, is betrayed by the waffling moods of its adherents.

One minute these ladies are rough, tough, and hard to bluff . . . and the next minute they’re pasting trigger alerts on all the sharp corners of everyone’s lives….You’ve seen those moments of high heels gone wrong in which the poor girl staggers violently in every possible direction before actually falling down? That’s what the evangelical feminists remind me of. There’s no clear trajectory….On the one hand, they want to be hard edged modern women, all pant suits and nun chucks, but then again, what they really want to be is tender and empathetic, cherishing and tenderly petting the hurt feelings of everyone everywhere.

Now, I don’t own nun chucks—or a pants suit, for that matter—but I get what she’s trying to say. She wants feminists to pick; are we introspectively worried about the things in life that are harmful to women, or are we confident and proud and chasing our dreams?

Of course, the problem with her statement becomes clear: Why are those two things mutually exclusive?

She seems to believe that people should either be tough and unshakable or deal with emotions about painful things, but the truth is, almost everyone does both of those things. It’s not a sign of double-mindedness to hold confidence but also bemoan the world’s problems. It’s a sign of being human.

I love my job and feel confident going to work in the morning. I also worry about the rape culture that makes me less safe in the world. I’m confident in my wardrobe choices and don’t allow anyone to tell me how I ought to dress. I also get sad and frustrated when my opinions aren’t taken seriously by men. How are those instances of confidence and sadness contradictory? They each seem appropriate to the context.

In fact, if we’re going to criticize people for being both sensitive and a pot-stirrer, we’d better start criticizing Jesus, who wept over Lazarus’ death and attacked merchant stalls, who wanted to gather Jerusalem to his bosom and also called the Pharisees snakes in the grass.

I’m also concerned that she ridicules feminists as “petting the hurt feelings” of people. I think she’s implying that feminists are too politically correct, but she is contributing to what I feel is a very dangerous societal trend—the trend of ridiculing people who are concerned for others. I see this constantly. People ridicule those who they think are too concerned with racial reconciliation, with the plight of immigrants, with rape culture, with bullying in schools. It moves beyond disagreement about the problem and into an attempt to shame others away from being empathetic. I disagree with that approach. I don’t think any of us really want to live in a world where you can be shamed for legitimately caring about another person’s feelings.

Merkle emphasizes again how humorous it is that feminists are both confident and emotionally sensitive, and then makes an interesting move—examining the role of “chumpish” men in fueling the feminist fires.

Men. Men who are chumps. Let us be frank – that’s the real problem here. If we want to dig in and get down to first causes, this is where the problem lies.

Christian feminists believe this is only partly true. The fall of man is the true “first cause” of oppression and patriarchy, and patriarchal women can contribute to the misery just as much as men. But I take her point that men who behave badly are a huge force of oppression in our society.

The thing that makes the evangelical feminists (which is a bit of an oxymoron really) as mad as fire is that Great Nemesis of the Western World…

Oxymoron? Wait, so traditional gender roles are part of the definition of what it means to be evangelical? I thought “evangelical” was more about the conversion experience, holding a high view of scripture (which most evangelical feminists do), focusing on life transformation, and evangelizing. Did the definition change to include a certain set of gender roles?

This brings up the bigger question of who she’s talking about when she says “feminists.” I went into this article assuming she meant the broader feminist culture, but maybe she means Christian feminists in particular. Christian feminists, while holding many things in common with feminists from other (or no) faith traditions, will probably have a few beliefs, sensibilities, and approaches that are different, and that’s going to complicate the discussion. I will assume, for the sake of staying focused, that she’s talking about Christian feminists.

Patriarchy, and anything that reminds them of patriarchy, or alliterates with patriarchy. (Like “Paul” for instance.)

I like Paul…

So let’s take a moment to peer into the bushes that the feminists are setting up a squawk about. What men do we find in that camp? Well, if we let the feminists define the boundaries of who is in “That Camp” then we find a whole smorgasbord of men because it turns out that feminists aren’t terribly good at defining their terms.

I would disagree with her there. Christian feminists hold a much more complex view of the problem than just seeing a particular group of men as being in the enemy camp.

Christian feminists believe that the fall of man led to hierarchy between men and women that hadn’t been there before (see Genesis 3:16). The temptation to slip into hierarchy is something we’re all complicit in, because it touches our fallen humanity.

Yes, some men are boorish and awful and abusive toward women. Other well-meaning men simply seize control without stopping to think about women’s input and experience. Some men are unable to let go of their supposed right to leadership because of pride, or because their own sense of manhood has been wounded. Women have a part to play, as well—some of the most vicious personal attacks against Christian feminists come from patriarchal women who can’t bear to see someone choose a different path than they did, and prefer to lash out. Other women follow patriarchy because it’s what they know, and the task of learning to navigate the world as independently as their husbands do looks intimidating. Sometimes, you’ll find a woman who’s lazy and wants her husband to function like her father. And then you’ve got men and women who simply go along with patriarchal ideas because they’ve been taught that it’s the way to please God.

Maybe the reason she thinks feminists can’t decide who’s in the enemy camp is because she’s misunderstood that we don’t have an enemy camp. Rather, we see patriarchy as part of the fall that all people must be rescued from.

And it’s those men – the chumpish ones – who provide much of the ammo which the feminists are flinging at the faithful men. So I would like to humbly offer the suggestion to the menfolk – if you don’t like the feminists, then for heaven’s sakes stop making their point for them!

Merkle goes on to describe rude and oppressive men she’s met—men who told her she shouldn’t be educated or express an opinion. This is where she and I agree. There are, indeed, men who act like idiots, using the tenets of patriarchy to their own selfish advantage and seeming to take pleasure in putting women down. I appreciate that she can recognize the more ridiculous side of patriarchy. I may disagree with complementarian women, but I certainly don’t think they’re all a bunch of numbskulls. Many women who believe in complementarianism can still see swaggering machismo for what it is.

And she’s right that the behavior of those men only strengthens a Christian feminist’s resolve.

Merkle says something else that I agree with, provisionally: some men live out patriarchy as a reaction against feminism rather than out of true, objective conviction about what God’s plan is.

Their guiding principle is that if it makes the feminists mad then it must be right . . . which means they set their course based on what the feminists are doing. The feminists are the wind beneath their wings….The irony of course, is that the feminists are doing the same thing. Being led around by the nose by a bunch of blustering, self-important mushrooms – and congratulating themselves all the while about how they’ve thrown off the old shackles of submission.

I said I agreed with this provisionally because, like so many things in this article, I think the truth is a lot more complex. Yes, it is human nature to sometimes base our course against what the “other side” is doing. If patriarchs or feminists believe that no one in their camp ever makes reactionary decisions in opposition to the other side, then they are living in a fantasy world.

Yet it almost feels like she’s dismissing everything feminists stand for as boiling down to thumbing their nose at the other side.

I’ve been a feminist for quite awhile now, and I can tell you what some of our most motivating factors are. We see women who feel a strong call into ministry and experience needless frustration and hurt following it against a patriarchal backdrop. We see young wives exhausted by demanding and contradictory messages about their role as tireless maid, attentive mother, sexy bedroom vixen, smiling hostess, strong complaint-proof queen of the home and simultaneous doormat to their husband’s whims. We see women who work hard at the office and live in a vague sense of malaise when they never get promotions or raises or opportunities that match their male coworkers’. We see women beaten down by the message that they are little more than a sexual body for a man’s consumption.

So yes, we sometimes get mad and react against the douche-pants who says women shouldn’t go to college, but I assure you that even when he is not there, we have plenty of reasons to ride that feminist train. Feminism exists in the face of polite complementarianism just as well as the face of outright male abuse.

I think there are plenty of men who are attracted to the biblical idea of covenant headship in the home . . . because they don’t understand it whatsoever….they are weak-sauce little putzes who are unlikely to get any respect on their own, so they like to cluster around a strong man or strong teaching, hoping that they’ll get a little “trickle down” masculinity and moral authority by virtue of proximity….These are guys who set an incredibly low bar for themselves (facial hair is the basic requirement), which is why they are threatened by any woman with brains or abilities.

Yes, yes, and yes. I gotta be honest: I totally agree with this part. I think one could write an equally scathing analysis of some of the women in the hardcore patriarchal movement, but that’s a subject for a different day.

Thankfully, I didn’t grow up with that as a father. God was gracious to me, and gave me a father who trained me to be unthreatened by that kind of little man syndrome.

Yeah, me too. 🙂

If I functioned purely on the basis of my instincts, all my hackles go up when I’m confronted by men like that.

And yet she criticizes feminists for being “shrill” and “insecure” when we have that reaction?

But I had a strong father who taught me that being irritated and reactionary is weakness not strength.

Here comes the part where I turn on my writing teacher face for a second. Despite her repeated assertions that being reactionary is silly, and that being irritated shows weakness, and her earlier statement that you shouldn’t go down to the level of the people who annoy you, she seems to be doing exactly that with the tone of her article.

Her opening paragraph is written in a tone of sarcasm, ridicule, and dismissal toward feminists. How is that attitude different than the attitude of the swaggering patriarchal buffoons that she criticizes later?

She accuses some of her detractors, such as Rachel Held Evans, of having “emotional spasms,” but she herself can’t stop from throwing out snarky remarks and calling names at random times throughout the article. Calling people shrill, bumptious, insecure, and self-serious does not make me want to listen to her opinions on the demeanor of other bloggers.

You can’t choose your father but you can (thank the Lord!) choose your husband . . . and I would encourage all the single ladies out there to make sure you understand the difference between counterfeit masculinity and the real thing.

Sure. I totally agree.

Don’t be fooled by bluster. Don’t be fooled into thinking that’s what leadership ought to look like…. Don’t fall for a weak man dressed up as a strong one . . . but also don’t think that a weak man acting like a weak man will make you happy. You don’t want a husband who’s a dictator, but neither do you want a husband who will be your girlfriend . . .

I didn’t quite know what to do with this section. Does she believe that’s what feminists want—weak men? Or does she believe that a man who believes in equality will always prove to be weak in the end? And what’s this about a feminist husband being a “girlfriend”?

Not to beat the sun-bleached bones of the horse that was dead several blog posts ago, but do you mind if I, once again, dip into my personal life as a counter-point here?

Jaron has built a successful career for himself, in addition to a successful side career that allows him to pursue his dreams. He has made some very excellent financial decisions for our family. He has been an incredible support to me through tough times, to friends who were having problems, and to family members when their lives weren’t going well. He is secure in his masculinity, as evidenced by his lack of need to chest-bump with the swaggering buffoons of the world. He knows his own mind, and I dare you to really cross him on something.

Yet he believes that I’m entitled to fifty percent of the say in our family decisions. He believes that God is just as likely to speak to him through me as to me through him. He delights in my career aspirations. He sees the ways in which women are oppressed.

None of these things have cancelled out his strengths. Whatever picture Merkle has in her head of a feminist husband being weak doesn’t match the picture of my marriage at all.This belief that you can’t find a solid, worthwhile person who believes in gender equality is not only wrong, it is pernicious and damaging, because it tells women who might consider the feminist perspective that they will be cutting off their chances of a functional spouse if they try. It’s an empty threat that nevertheless strikes at something so close to the heart that women are afraid to test it.

With that, I’m going to leave this post. Jory Micah and Rebekah Merkle have continued their online conversation since I wrote the first draft of this post, so definitely check that out if you’re interested.