Reader Dan Whitmarsh gently points out the errors of painting with too broad a brush. In this post, yesterday, some of my words were chosen poorly. I gave the impression that all those who believe in abstinence before marriage are committed to an anti-feminist agenda. What I ought to have said is that the organized purity movement — with its rings and balls and pundits and bad comparisons of the sexually active to used chewing gum — is fundamentally reactionary and anti-feminist. But not everyone who believes in pre-marital chastity endorses the tactics, the rhetoric, and the broader cultural goals of the purity myth peddlers.
I left the Mennonite Church USA and the blogging team at Christians for Biblical Equality because my views on sex outside of marriage were at odds with the agreed principles of these two organizations. (I described my — amicable on all sides — departure from those outfits here.) I’ve known a great many folks whose commitment to radical gender egalitarianism and to economic justice is profound and real — but whose persistent sense that Scripture confines genital sexual activity to heterosexual marriage alone is also profound and real. These are not the sort of folks who marched in favor of Proposition 8, mind you, nor are they the sort who would be caught dead comparing a teen who has pre-marital sex to a rose whose petals have been plucked. They generally know that pelvic morality is never a “salvation issue”, as we say around the shop. But — often with reluctance and ambivalence — they will not go where the Bible, tradition, and their own sense of God will not permit them to go. I think they are fundamentally wrong in their hermeneutic (they feel the same way about me), but that doesn’t mean I lump them in the same basket with the noxious “True Love Waits” crowd.
To my friends on the evangelical left whose commitment to social justice and full inclusion for women is real, but whose commitment to marriage as the only licit venue for sex is also real, I apologize for having implied that you were indistinguishable from the “rascals on the right.” I may still believe you’re short of the mark, but you’re a lot closer than those whom Jessica Valenti so rightly excoriates.
See, Hugo, that’s why I keep you on my blog roll. On a whole host of issues I disagree with you, but your irenic spirit keeps me coming back. Although I’m pretty firmly entrenched on “this side,” I try to understand those who hold to different viewpoints. But I don’t really enjoy going into places in which I’m labeled the pariah, the fundie moron, the neanderthal from people who don’t really want to understand this side over here. Places that pursue the us/them paradigm grow stale; I’d rather live in the tension of “we,” even when “we” don’t agree on some pretty fundamental issues. Probably why I’m in the Covenant Church, too.
So thanks for listening to one who’s not generally hanging out around the same campfire, and for even receiving so slight a correction. It’s people like you who help me personalize the other side of the discussion, and keep it from becoming so much mud-slinging and ‘other-ing.’
Dan says it very well. Thanks for the kind and sincere reconsideration of your words, Hugo; this particular socially conservative egalitarian appreciates it. If only all other bloggers (and I suppose I must include myself in that description as well!) could be as open-minded and generous in your determination to affirm your beliefs and respect others’ beliefs as the same time.
I’ve known a great many folks whose commitment to radical gender egalitarianism . . . is profound and real — but whose persistent sense that Scripture confines genital sexual activity to heterosexual marriage alone is also profound and real.
This is an obvious oxymoron. The belief that heterosexual marriage is the only place for sexuality must necessarily be based on a belief in the fundamental difference of the sexes — one must believe the sexes to be two totally different, mutually exclusive, perfectly complementary groups in order to justify the stance that heterosexual marriage is the one and only appropriate context for romantic love. And such a view, predicated as it is on the sexes being complementary, is, by definition, not egalitarian. (It’s not the belief in chastity that’s inegalitarian, but the belief that only heterosexuality is legitimate.)
I’m not trying to say that all such people are the virulent misogynists who run the purity movement, but they to say they are committed to “radical gender egalitarianism” is totally absurd.
These are not the sort of folks who marched in favor of Proposition 8
In what world are the people who think heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate outlet for sex not the people who marched in favor of Prop 8? Is there some vast coalition of religious people who object to all homosexual love but paradoxically favor equal rights for gay people?
The belief that heterosexual marriage is the only place for sexuality must necessarily be based on a belief in the fundamental difference of the sexes — one must believe the sexes to be two totally different, mutually exclusive, perfectly complementary groups in order to justify the stance that heterosexual marriage is the one and only appropriate context for romantic love.
Ridiculously untrue. Frank believes the sexes are equivalent/equal and also believes that sex is inherently wrong and bad, so the only justification for having sex is to make a baby; Frank also believes babies should be created in stable married relationships; QED, Frank believes what you claim can be believed only by us wicked complementarians, without being one. (You can make it sex-positive by keeping Frank an egalitarian and having him think sex is so wonderful and holy it should only be performed within God-sanctioned relationships.)
Robert, good point — I did not accounted for people who think sex is inherently evil and disgusting in my analysis.
About God-sanctioned relationships, well, I guess that gets into why we think God gives us commandments in the first place. (And before I go further, I should mention that I’m Jewish — we believe in questioning and interpreting the Law; there are instances in the Torah where humans change God’s mind and/or please God by questioning God.) If we think God’s commandments are simply arbitrary rules, which we should neither question nor understood, then sure, one could believe the sexes are equal/equivalent, but that, for no apparent reason, God has sanctioned only heterosexual relationships. If, however, we think that each commandment is a commandment for a reason, then there must be a reason why God would ask us to limit sex to heterosexual marriage — and there is no reason this would be so if the sexes are equal/equivalent (unless God just hates sex and wants to minimize it strictly to reproduction; I did overlook that before.)
I’m not trying to argue right now what constitutes a legitimate religious interpretation — I really don’t care how Christians choose to practice Christianity (this goes for any religion other than my own, right up till the point where that group tries to use their freedom of religion to try to take away others’ by insisting the state comply with their church). All I’m arguing is that the view that licit sex can only happen in a heterosexual marriage is not compatible with “radical gender egalitarianism.” I do now admit two possible exceptions: people who think all sex is wrong, so we should all have as little as possible, and people who think the commandments are just arbitrary, unquestionable rules. If Hugo intended to include those groups in his post, then fine, his statement was technically correct — but I maintain that it’s an oxymoron in most cases.
Robert, I have a reply to you that’s in moderation — it may be awhile before it gets posted, due to Hugo’s schedule. My apologies for any delay.
And such a view, predicated as it is on the sexes being complementary, is, by definition, not egalitarian.</i?
Daisy, I can’t even begin to understand why this would be the case. Since when has the only possible definition of equality–the only possible expression of egalitarianism–been sameness? Complementarity is completely compatible, I think anyway, with the conviction that both members of the complementary unit are equal in social, legal, political, or moral terms.
Russell Arben Fox,
I agree wholeheartedly. (I’m pro gay marriage, btw, and currently engaged in deep reflection about the licitness of homosexuality, but I want no part of Hugo’s ideal world when it comes to gender relations- which I see as lowering women to the moral standard of men, instead of the other way round. No thank you.)
Daisy Bond,
That was a compelling post- I expecially liked your reflection on arbitrary vs. non-arbitrary commands. I don’t know what the Evangelical view is, but in the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican view, God’s commands are not arbitrary, except maybe for a very few exceptions. He commands what is good for us, and He wants only what is best for us. The ‘arbitrary command’ theory, is to my mind, as was said in the Regensburg address a couple years back, deeply hostile to Christianity.
Russel, Hugo has a long history of specifically using “egalitarian” as the opposite of “complementarian” in his writing. Maybe this post was a retraction of that, but that’s the framework in which I was reading.
Also, I’d like to point out the difference between a) believing that the sexes are, in general, different, complementary, etc. and b) believing there are no exceptions to the rule — that there are no masculine women, feminine men, or androgynous people, and/or that those people are sick, or sinners, or shouldn’t form relationships that actually work for them. It’s the latter view, not the former, that I find really disturbing.
Thanks, Hector. I really dislike the “arbitrary rule” idea. Talk about missing the point!
@Hector: so you’re saying your strong, articulate moral standards are (inherently, gender-innately) lower than women’s? Even though you’re disagreeing with Daisy Bond’s moral assessment of standards as insufficient?
Also, not to put too fine a point on it but if you were to make your case about the moral superiority of women any time in Church history before, oh, say, the advent of modernity maybe 250-300 years ago most men of faith would have thought you somewhere between naive and depraved.
—
@Daisy Bond: “Robert, good point — I did not accounted for people who think sex is inherently evil and disgusting in my analysis.” Yup, it might not be sex positive… and might even (in my opinion) impose grossly unnecessary physical distractions from spiritual reflection (why not instead, say, “practice” anorexia?) but it can be consistent with gender equality.
figleaf
Figleaf,
That is to say, I think many feminists want women to be able to participate fully in capitalism, become rich and powerful, live lives of ease and comfort, pursue self-expression instead of self-denial, have lots of casual sex with lots of partners, to place less emphasis on procreation, and in general to live out the creed that they own themselves, their bodies and souls, and can do with them whatever they please.
I don’t think any of those is a good thing, though, for men OR for women. I think that the true advance of civilization would be, as Tolstoy said, for men to become more like women, not the other way round. I think all of us need to focus more on self-abnegation, not self-expression: again, men and women both. That was the root of Tolstoy’s argument with the feminists of his day, and it’s the root of mine too.
Clue: I can see how one could perceive feminism as seeking a kind of “equality” with men that would include “lots of casual sex with lots of partners.” I’m… pretty sure it would be utterly and completely missing everything feminism is about. Particularly the much-maligned 3rd-wave feminism that’s derided by outsiders as “do-me” feminism.
What feminism is about, particularly 3rd-wave feminism, is entirely and exclusively that women aren’t *property.* Not *your* property to dispose of as you wish. Not their *partner’s* property to dispose of as he wishes. And (unlike the possible, transitional 2nd-wave view) not *their own* property to dispose of as they wish. Instead feminism is about women are human beings and therefore not property, *period.* People. Not things. And certainly *their own* things. (Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation would have made little sense if he’d merely proclamed that thenceforth slaves would be their *own* property instead of someone else’s!)
And speaking of which the whole sex thing is a total property scam: feminism doesn’t want women to have *more* sex. Heck, except maybe for abuse and assault survivors, and some radical holdouts from the 1970s who haven’t figured out that Lysistrata was written by a *man,* most feminists don’t want women to have *less* sex either. (Heh. Just imagining, say, Judith Butler saying women should have lots of casual sex is… pretty funny.) Instead feminists tend to say their sexuality should not be considered a fungible good to be hoarded or bestowed based on externalities.
As for participation in capitalism I think, say, the original radical feminist Redstockings would be *very* surprised to hear that. And considering how many, especially, radical feminists explicitly equate capitalism and patriarchy…
As for the other items, um, yeah, it would be pretty catastrophic for women to live lives of ease and comfort or to pursue self-expression!
Finally, let me recommend Trinity College professor Elizabeth Abbott’s “The History of Celibacy” for a rundown of Tolstoy’s understanding of women and sexuality. There’s much to admire about the man but the bottomless chasm between his ideals of celibacy, his practice of forcing himself on his wife, and blaming *her* for his “weakness” is *not* a good model for those who would rather not burn in Hell when they die. (Don’t feel bad for being confused by this. Andrea Dworkin, who opens “Intercourse” with her assessment of the Tolstoy marriage, also completely misses the point: she saw him as a straight-up hypocritical rapist; he saw himself as a helpless victim of his wife’s, and all women’s, insatiable, promiscuous desire for children at any cost.) I *strongly* recommend finding someone else to root your arguments against feminism on. (Or, better, consider not arguing with feminism at all.)
figleaf
Re: Finally, let me recommend Trinity College professor Elizabeth Abbott’s “The History of Celibacy†for a rundown of Tolstoy’s understanding of women and sexuality.
Without getting into the rest of your interesting argument, Figleaf, let me just say that I’ve read that book, and would strongly recommend it to everyone as well.
That is to say, I think many feminists want women to be able to participate fully in capitalism, become rich and powerful
This actually really bothers me too. Most feminists I encounter recognize that our current economic system is unjust and unsustainable, but it’s really frustrating when people try to focus all feminist energy on wealthy women’s ability to climb the corporate ladder. This is a society-wide problem, not a uniquely feminist problem by any means, but feminists do it too. Bleh.