You don't need to identify with a subgroup - or even all of feminism's belief's - to be a feminist.

Very true. But if there are modern Feminists who are setting forth ideas that very much go against your own, the waves and subgroup names can be a useful tool in letting people know what you believe and what you don't.

As for me, I don't consider myself a Feminist, although I believe that it was very necessary in the days of the First and (in many ways) the Second Wave, in order to accomplish things that have been accomplished. And I will stand up for anyone that's being treated unfairly. I tend to agree more with general human rights groups than I do the specific rights groups.

Anyways, that's the last I'll say about that since it's kind of off-topic.

If you do have more to add, we can always talk about it on the Christianity, Religion, and Philosophy thread.

Okay, I misunderstood because at first I thought you were agreeing with it!

If any of my statements sounded as if I agree with the idea that a woman (or anyone else) should always be under the headship of her parents, please point them out to me so I can edit them or clarify what I meant, since I definitely don't want to be spreading that belief around. A different member mentioned earlier that her family adheres to that belief system, and my disagreeing with her is what started the feminism conversation. The idea that a woman (or anyone) must always be under the headship of a parent is a form of Patriarchy that I have always disagreed with and especially disliked. And as the years have gone by, I've met many people who adhered to it, and saw the tragic consequences it led to. So I definitely do not want to have any part in spreading such a belief.

From what I've seen, the vast majority of courtships do not work at all.

Even the "success stories" of courtship have not been very palatable in my opinion. The moments of getting to know a potential partner are crucial. If you don't get to know their hearts as well as you ought before marring them, it can be disastrous. This is one of the main beefs I have with the courtship method is that everything is about not being alone together, not seeing each other very much (in fear of excess or infatuation), and this weird paranoia that everything will lead to sex. I mean, I could never get to know anyone -- not even a female friend -- if my parents were looking over my shoulder all the time. And a lot of people on the side of courtship will even say that a movie date is sin because it will "inevitably" lead to passionate kissing in the theater, or at least the temptation of it. I tell you, if my boyfriend wanted to take me to a Star Trek movie or Hobbit movie, then by all that is good and sacred in this world, we shall go. And we're not going to start kissing. We'd miss the movie if we did that!

~Riella

I am defiantly a feminist. I can become rather extreme when people say something regarding gender that I don't agree with. I believe that we should treat all people as individuals, not put them under a group due to age, gender or what ever else. I feel very uneasy and terrible when people say something negative about Australian Aboriginals.

My year 12 chemistry teacher use(still does) to to judge me by gender, he believed that females couldn't possibly be good at science and was totally surprised when I I got good scores all year and 98% in my final exam. I think the feminist in me made me study chem hard just to prove him wrong.

Also, I dated for the first time this summer and what I learned from the experience is this: There is a difference between liking someone and liking the attention you get from someone. It also confirmed that - for me, in my life, personally - (careful, Christian) dating is better than courtship.

What, me? No, no. I believe dating and courtship are words that are used almost interchangeably amongst Christians and that we need to define what we mean by each. I'm not against godly dating and the word courtship just gives me Jane Austen nightmares.

A quick comment on the "courtship vs. dating" definitions from the church basement websites (who got rather heated, so I won't use direct quotes because bad-words).

"Dating" tends to have a reputation (or stereotype) for one person, all alone, stumbling through the process of meeting people, vetting people, spending time with people, realizing a huge mistake has been made involving the (not-so-well-vetted-after-all) people but lacking the discernment or even the vocabulary to diagnose the problem, and crying to friends and relatives who may or may not be at all understanding and sympathetic.

(Variant: the worldly approach of, "why not just [fornicate]? Everyone else is doing it. You're really over-thinking this dating business. Just have fun!" Eww. See Lack of Understanding and Sympathy, above.)

"Courtship" tends to have a reputation (or stereotype) for a young man desiring a young woman, who talks to his father, who talks to her father, who talks to her, with the result that a young woman who finds herself facing three rather large and formidable men who made up their minds before ever discussing it with her -- if any link in the chain didn't like the process they'd stop it before it ever got to her -- but who tell her it's "her" decision. This "decision" being handed to a young woman who grew up in an environment where Dad's voice can be either sweet as a Purity Ball or sour as a Patriarchy, but it's not really up for debate. How can she find her voice now if it wasn't encouraged in the past? And how can she know if this suitor is any good if she has no basis for comparison, rarely having met anybody?

(Variant: the young man at a Christian college who walks up to a young woman and says that "I think God told me to marry you." Barring a revelation from God to the young woman, what are her options? To say that Dad/boyfriend/pastor/other is either lying or else has a very wrong comprehension and/or expectation about God. And saying, "if you like him so much, you marry him!" becomes not just about disappointing dear old Dad, but *gasp* about a sin!)

...

Both definitions are somewhat accurate and, simultaneously, somewhat unfair. Reality, I think, is somewhere in between.

...

How the crowd got on this topic, I'm not really sure. I think they were debating if this was the reason Eve ate the forbidden fruit: that no one asked her if she wanted to marry Adam, and the serpent knew it. That the reason she ate was in the hope of a better life for herself. What, she didn't know.

(Before you think this is too loopy, consider that it's close to the reasoning found in Left Behind: the-Very-Last-Book-They-Promise a.k.a. #16, Kingdom Come. The teenaged rebels live in a world where Jesus is a King, sits on a Throne, and rules an earthly Paradise. But the kids rebel anyway, arguing that they have no choice but to worship Jesus, and they don't like the fact that they have no choice. So they argue (no, really) that if they help Satan overthrow Jesus, perhaps he will give them something better than the life they have now. The life they have now in earthly Paradise, where they can talk to God and God answers. What could be better than that, they don't know. But that's the temptation that lures them. Earlier in the book series, Satan allegedly says something like, "Hey, it worked on the woman.")

Comparisons then followed to the Classic Star Trek episode "Metamorphosis". Was Nancy Hedford consulted before being brought into the private romance of Cochrane and the Companion?

Comparisons then followed to the traditional fairy tales of Western culture ... the prince charming having adventures and being rewarded with a bride; of course she loved him and they lived happily ever after! Why, that was her job!

So there is some precedent in the way even "modern, liberated" Western culture and Westerners look at relationships.

Forgive the double-post, but I was curious for other people’s feedback on this. Mods feel free to adjust if needed.

Recently a blogger mom’s article sort of blew up in the popular internet press as an example of the so-called Modesty Culture ™ going awry.

My take? On the one hand, I must agree that children are not born knowing things; they must be taught. A youngster who feels safe in her bedroom might not remember that the selfies she posts from that supposedly safe place are seen by friends and foes and perverts and employers and colleges and true loves and who-knows-who-else. Would a young woman stroll through church, through school, through the workplace, through the mall in her pajamas (or less)? I doubt it. That is because we teach children not to stroll through churches, schools, workplaces, and malls in their pajamas (or less). Our young people don’t seem to “get” that the virtual world is real until it bites them in a bad way.

On the other hand, I don’t think that teaching young men “mangst,” learned helplessness, or “pearl-clutching” daintiness helps. There are more than enough adults already policing the net and the real world for people to shun so that they may take pride in having shunned them. Worse, they seldom live alone, and others end up walking on eggshells around them. The Professionally Offended™ tend to make difficult mates, friends, and faith witnesses.

Thoughts? These kids will be old enough to marry in a few years—but not necessarily spiritually and emotionally fitted to marry. How do we address this?

I have not read that article (as I am not particularly keen on doing so at the moment), but I got an idea of it from the responses to it. So I should mention that I haven't read it yet.

I agree that everyone should have propriety of dress, but I dislike the popular attitude that the girl can somehow condition the guy to respect her. I believe that she is responsible for how she dresses, and he is responsible for how he looks at her.

That said, I am a bit frustrated at culture portraying women's bodies as the primary problem here. Some men dress as inappropriately as some women do. T
hen we go into defining what inappropriate is. I believe there are definitely standards, of course. You don't dress with your shirt unbuttoned when going to a business meeting. Swimsuits are great for the beach, but not for strolling around town. I believe that there is such a thing as propriety, but I disagree with a) saying it's for only females, b) splitting hairs by making a big deal about things like bare feet or something bizarre like that. What I'm saying is not making the distinction between someone merely being attractive and someone not dressing appropriately. Or someone trying to live their lives like normal human beings, like a girl who stretches out her arms after sitting in one position for a long time. We know there are some lines that should not be crossed, and there really are sincere people who are not trying to cross those lines, who are just trying to live their lives as Christians.
A lot of it is culture--in culture, it's largely thought women have to be conscious, but men do not need to be. I disagree with that. Much of why we blame people or why people feature the things they do with their bodies is partly because of cultural perceptions. For example, in India, midriff is accepted as part of the sari. Here, it's regarded as in the "inappropriate" region. Am I saying that, because a lot of these perceptions of culture, we should abandon them all and go with no clothes? ... No. Our bodies are made in the image of God, but if we did that, we would lust after each other, because of sin in the world.
But as people love to, people take either side to the extreme, either advocating no clothes or advocating suffocating people. Both men and women have a degree of freedom, and both have a degree of propriety. It's finding a good balance. c) having learned helplessness. I think that is part of the reason that Jesus began with, "If you lust." He addressed the sinner--and the sinner can be male or female here. Then we see how the object of lust has his or her responsibility. But it does not seem constructive to a) see a billboard b) lust c) solely blame the billboard. The billboard has its responsibility, but you have yours, too. And this goes for male and female. Both can be objects of lust, and both can be lusting.

There is a difference between lust and regarding someone as attractive, and, in an entirely different arena, someone just being another human being... like, a girl or guy rolling up their sleeves to their shoulder or something because their sleeves are getting in the way.
Modesty is not just a girl problem, and lust is not just a guy problem. We all need to respect each other.

There are more than enough adults already policing the net and the real world for people to shun so that they may take pride in having shunned them.

I agree.

Great response, Aslanisthebest. I agree with everything you said.

One more thought I had concerning it as that no one seems to be thinking about this blog post from the boys' point of view. There's an unfairness going on here in both the original blog post and the responses to it around the internet, and it's disappointing that no one seems to be noticing.

If you look at the responses to this blog, and the purity movement in general, they mostly say the same thing -- that the viewpoint it espouses is unfair to women (which it is), and that it's misogynistic (Welllll... that's what I'm about to get to).

The reasons why it is unfair towards women has already been pointed out in Aslanisthebest's lovely post. I mean, if a girl can't even roll up her sleeves, or stretch after sitting too long, without an ideological movement calling her a temptation, you know someone's doing something wrong. And by "someone", I don't mean the girl. "Being modest" should not equal having to hide in a dark room with our arms crossed over our chests in shame as we chant the phrase, "I'm sorry I have curves. Turn away from me lest I lead you to the devil."

So, there's no question that the modern purity movement is unfair towards women. I do have reservations, however, in calling it misogynistic. By calling it misogynistic, people make it sound as if it's only unfair towards women. It isn't. Something that's bothered me quite a lot about the modern purity movement is that it is also very unfair towards men. And there are very few people speaking up about it -- even in the groups that are dead-set against the purity movement.

The purity movement teaches that:

- The female figure has an unimaginable effect on men. So much so that it leads them to lust (or worse).

- If females show off their figures, they run the risk of being objectified, lusted after, hit on, or raped.

- Since females are both intelligent and possessing good sense and choice, they should use that good sense to make the choice of modesty, and show men their intelligence rather than their figure, while keeping themselves safe.

In other words:

At worst, a woman is a temptation and/or promiscuous.
At best, a woman is modest, sensible, and intelligent.

At worst, a man is dangerous and/or a rapist.
At best, a man is carnal with very little self-control, whose Christian life depends entirely on the choices of those around him; but who might be able to view women as intelligent if they cover themselves up. Maybe.

While both of these standards are unfair... which one is moreso? Ladies, it is definitely unfair for us that this stereotype says our bodies are temptations, and that we must hide ourselves in order to be seen as intelligent, and to avoid labels of being promiscuous. But at least we get the benefit of being called intelligent at some point! According to this stereotype, if a man lives a holy life, would never dream of raping anyone, does his best not to lust, and always tries to treat his female friends and family members with love and respect, then it must be because his female acquaintances dressed modestly. After all, men are so carnal and lacking in self-control, right? It must be because the women in his life made the correct choices. No credit can go to him, or (if he's a Christian) the Spirit of Christ that lives within him.

While there are plenty of people pointing out the unfairness and inaccuracy of the above standard involving women, very few are pointing out the unfairness and inaccuracy of the one involving men. And those who do usually do it from the angle of, "If you teach men they have no self-control and can't help objectifying/raping people, then they will choose to have no self control and will end up objectifying/raping people." And while it's true that some men will use this stereotype as an excuse for their sin, to say that this is always the case -- or to say that this stereotype will cause men to turn into rapists when they otherwise would not have been -- is just as absurd and unfair as the original stereotype itself. Despite what people say, there are thousands of men out there who genuinely respect women. Not because the women they know are modest. Not because their parents sheltered them from certain things. Not because Feminism or school or society taught them that women are intelligent individuals. But because they are good men, because the Holy Spirit has made them good men. And these sorts of stereotypes are just plain libelous towards them.

I remember when certain family members, much like the mother in that article, tried to shelter me from certain things, lest those things "distract me and lead me away from the Lord." All I could think at the time was, "Do you really believe my faith to be so weak? Do you really think that, even if I was allowed to see these things, that I would approve of them?" What my parents didn't realize was that my faith in God was in God's hands; not theirs. And the worst part of it was, when other people heard that my parents were sheltering things from me "lest I leave the faith", they would pick up on that worry, think there was some cause for it, and also start treating my faith as something easily breakable.

Ever since that mom wrote the article, she has received a lot of criticism. But if you look at the criticism, you'll see something else there as well.

This mom really dropped the ball. My letter to her, if I was still the mother of a teenage girl, would be to keep her sons away from my daughter. I wouldn't want her to ever date the kind of boy who thought girls were responsible for anything he chose to do with his own free will.

The original blog post, though I disagree with it, is a fairly normal thing you would expect an overprotective mother of boys to say. And we can't gather anything from it as to what the boys themselves think, or how they view women, or what they would do in the presence of a woman who was dressed immodestly. I can't help but wonder if sometimes, just like I did, they think to themselves, "Do you really believe my faith to be so weak?" Because no matter what their mother says online or teaches them, if they are Christians (as the blog indicates they are), Christ is their true teacher. And the fact that now strangers everywhere are treating these boys as potential rapists, just because their mother made a blog post, is the true unfairness in this particular situation.

On another note, the original author of the blog post repented of her condescension and apologized for her post here.

~Riella

Wowsers, excellent posts, ladies! I have nothing further to add.

Interesting topic. And congratulations to ericnovak's getting married.

Could someone explain to me why especially in relation to dating? Christians go on about how marriage and sexuality is something that is suppose to be sacred and private...yet everyone in the family and their cousins are allowed to have a say in what happens in the love lives of adult children? Isn't there a difference between being under someone's authority and bending to every will and whim of this person in authority?

There are some Christian groups that believe that a woman must always be under the authority of a man. They don't believe in the concept of a woman "turning 18" and being her own boss. Instead, she remains at home under her father's guidance unless and until she gets married, and then she is under her husband. This idea is something I believe to be unbiblical. Most of these groups believe this to be God's will because there are descriptions of this lifestyle set-up described in the Bible. But there is a difference between description and prescription. I believe that sort of living has more to do with the cultural laws that were around at the time, and less to do with what God was actually condoning.~Riella

Yes you are right. Believe it or not, but St Paul was actually easing up on women's roles in their marriages in his writings. He and fellow apostles like Peter & John also needed to protect their Christian followers from not only the Jewish communities around them, who could and did criticize Christians, but also the wider Roman community, which forbade women to speak publicly, and who were quite twitchy about women being in charge of anything more than their own clothing.

It is quite useful to study Ancient History, isn't it? However the resident agnostic tries to argue, there is no doubt that Christianity, and later, Islam, did ameliorate the persecution women endured in their original societies. However, it seems some religious groups seem to think that the cultural expectations of women of those times should be preserved unto a fossilized state, not the spirit of reform which aimed to ease those cultural expectations.

And I am so grateful for feminism, any feminism, especially when some feminist ideals are entrenched in the law of the land. The trouble with letting a man get all his own way as 'the husband' is that sooner or later, there comes a time in marriage when he really needs to be told to shut up, to stop complaining about his lot in life, to get on with the job, and even to grow up. How does a nice Christianly submissive wife of nearly 43 years do this in the most effective way possible, without upsetting some Christian mores or other?

What do you think about marriage between people of different religions?

I suppose it would work if one member of the marriage is non-religious but not lets say if one was Christian and the other Muslim. I think if you have different religions it almost makes you incompatible.

I can only speak from a Christian perspective, but I honestly don't think dual religion marriages can work out well. It's just another complication to add to the complexities of marriage. In my opinion, missionary dating is terrible and non-biblical. Some non-Christian girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/husbands have come to know Christ through their believing boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife but that's the Holy Spirit's doing. I know that I couldn't marry a non-Christian because Christ is my everything - the way by which I view everything I believe, everything I see, everything I comprehend. Not being able to share in that with my future girlfriend and then wife, would be torture. I just couldn't do it.

Er, W4J, whilst I respect your point of view, I've also stayed married for nearly 43 years with someone who thinks religion of any sort is a lot of unnecessary hoojah, who has been brought up to think that 'religion is the opiate of the masses', and that churchgoers, priests etc are hypocritical oppressors of the gullible. Which hasn't stopped me from continuing to believe in Christ, or going to church, if I want, and which doesn't stop me professing Christianity. He doesn't stop me from doing what I want, though he has from time to time teased me, and subjected me to diatribes about his anti-religious views.

When he fell ill, this time last year, I got the church I attend to pray for him, and when he recovered, he ended up coming to church with me by way of saying thank you. But he would have to be a really dyed in the wool atheist to cause much trouble, since I can at least point out the Christian foundation to our Australian constitution, which is meant to ensure that no one church got to be the state religion, but also ensures people's right to believe what they want. And I can also tell him I need to be able to grizzle to someone who will help me let him know when enough is enough, and to persevere with my marriage, having married him in the church of my beliefs.

I doubt that a marriage can work for very long between a Christian and a Muslim unless one or the other is prepared to convert. The danger is that a woman will be forced to convert from Christianity to Islam, however strong she thought her beliefs were, and that if she changes her mind, her life can be at risk, especially if she finds herself marooned in another country which has adopted Islam as its state religion. I have heard of someone who converted to Christianity before marrying his Christian wife, but his life, too, as well as those of his wife and children, might be at risk if he mixes with Muslims.

When I was younger, marriages between Catholics and Protestants used to be a problem, but even then it was a good deal less of a hassle, than the ramifications we hear today of what happens in a Christian/Muslim union. These days, such an interdenominational marriage can be celebrated with a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister both being present at the same service. Do you know an old tune put out by the Irish Rovers, called the Orange and the Green? It used to be quite popular around 1970, and the lyrics describe quite vividly the sorts of difficulties if parents disagree about the education & upbringing of their children. These sorts of matters need to be worked out before making any commitment to anyone.

Wagga, I'm not having a go at you. I realise that there are some cases where it works, but most of the time, these marriages don't seem to last. I didn't mean to suggest that the Christian would become a pagan if they were married to a non-Christian, but more often than not, it seems to happen. At least with the people I know. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, that certainly wasn't my intention. You're doing well! Praise God!

I think my future boyfriend would have to be non-religious or slightly. If I was to date someone that is religious I doubt it would last past seeing my books collection( hitchens, dawkins.....).

I've never even made it all the way through "Pride and Prejudice" but I'll still hoping to get married one day. As for you, Fauns, I don't think you'll have any trouble finding someone. But yes, most Christians would have issues with Hitchens, Dawkins etc.