My choice, His life: How I am viewed-Part 1 in a Discussion of Biblical Womenhood

Sunday, March 25, 2007

How I am viewed-Part 1 in a Discussion of Biblical Womenhood

First, this is my 200th post. It seems fitting then that this message is about how my words have impacted others, and how I myself am now seen.

Through the wonders of site meter I saw that an incredible influx of visitors were coming to my site through an online community where I used to post. Of course these were in the days of my pro-life infancy, during a time where I trusted people more, and Christ less.

Anyways, these new additions to my online readership came from the "pro-choice" section of the main website. They came in response to a post I made about a year ago (snarkishly) realizing the irony that those who are in the highest ranks of the contemporary women's movement seem to cast aside any sibilance of femininity. Irony...hah. hah. Not my best moment.

Apparently there was an entire thread devoted to this post and why it made me "anti-feminist" Ooops. At least it was better than the influx of traffic I received from a child-free website thats main focus seemed to be calling my ill child "fugly".

Contained in this pro-choice thread was the analyzing of one member of my life and self. This I will share with my readers:(factual inaccuracies will be bolded to avoid confusion_

Broorel? I remembered she used to be in the pro-choice guild. Wearing a nursing suit and long blonde hair for her avatar.

She later joined pro-life guild (probably felt alienated here).In fact I never was a member of the pro-choice guild, though as you know, I was for many years pro-choice)

Joined the feminist guild, but had a hard time reconciling her Christianity religion with fundamental rights of women (which is difficult, if you believe in a literalist, concrete, fundie interpretation of the bible because there's plenty of passages that downgrade the status of women).In fact I did join the feminist guild, and contrary to belief left not because of conflicting moral qualms, but because I left the site altogether

From my short time of knowing her at the boards, I knew her as a nice girl but a confused girl.

She'll probably get mad by hearing what I have to say, but I know that in a few years time she will thank me for being very observant.

She'll tolerate this ideological framework that stands as her personally-imposed hell until it drives her crazy. Her life will feel increasingly empty, her husband would have gone complacent and comfortable being in the patriarchal role that she enabled and encouraged him to be in, she will resent him more and more for not treating her like an equal, and she will resent that her status as mother and the roles imposed on her end up actually objectifying the growing baby.

In fact, her personal dissatisfaction of this lifestyle is already showing signs because she wants all women to become her model. Women that do not conform to her way of life are considered "the other", the "masculine". There is great insecurity in knowing that not everyone is living, acting, and breathing the way yourself does, when deep down inside you never wanted to participate in life in this manner IN THE FIRST PLACE.

All of this, because I'm "sure" God *really* hates girls wearing pants.

The bulk of this really seems to be an affront to biblical womanhood, and not myself personally. It stands heavily on the notion that no woman happily chooses a life of servitude and grace. As scary as those words are to some people, many flourish under such guide.

So I feel now that I am not defending my person, but rather defending biblical womanhood as a whole. It is strange to me those who cry the loudest about our oppression, know little about the strength that comes with living a Godly life.

This begins then a discussion on Biblical Womanhood in a Modern Culture. I hope that any stray gaians will stay around for the ride. It's not much of a conversation if I'm the only one talking. But now I must dash to take the pot-pie out of the oven. :)

Labels: `

11 Comments:

May I post here as a guest, Miss Lauren?

I have just begun writing a post (not yet published) about how unfufilling it is being a, for a lack of a better term, "successful badass." I graduated in the top two of my college program, got my masters at 24 and walked into my dream job which was the first job for which I applied, bought my home and started my doctoral program at 25, and am currently living a very cushy existence at the top of my field. But recently I discovered something disturbing: I don't want to be a man. I don't want to bear the entire responsibility of protecting myself, providing for myself, and conforming to a man's world. Although I wholeheartedly love and serve Christ and labor for others in charity, I long to be completely devoted to a family and live in a manner that transcends my own vain ascendence.

Lauren, those women are lying to themselves, much like I unwittingly lied to myself. I don't want to be my own badass. I want to be someone's responsibility and some little one's mommy. I can do and I can have anything I desire, but that's what I want. Does that make me any less intelligent or successful? Or am I choosing the better thing?

Being your own all-in-all gets old quickly. Sex and the City characters will look quite ridiculous sipping mojitos when they grow older and wrinkly and their boobs are at their knees. It's women that are loved exclusively of all else in the world and that can dedicate themselves to the betterment of the next generation that are beaming in their rocking chairs with grandchildren on their laps and, in their old age, look back on their lives with pride. That's kind of woman I want to be.

So how about it? May I write something for your distinguished blog?

By JacqueFromTexas, at 6:03 PM
Of course!

By Lauren, at 7:18 AM
I must say that conforming to the idea of being feminine is not in and of itself truly feminist. Gender-defined roles are part of a ptriarchal society, and while it's true that the woman will always be the only mother, whether or not she is single or a parent should not be a forceful will, it should be a choice.

I personally want nothing more than to be loved and to love, and I would be happy (I think) being a "kept woman" - or at least, semi-kept. However, I would also like to have the knowledge that I would be able to stand on my own two feet.

To say that all woman want this would be a misnomer. To say that all women want ANYTHING would be a misnomer. To say that all the women who are the "ball-busting" career-types are just lying to themselves is unfair, and does the feminist movement no justice. What DOES do the feminist movement justice is to accept diversity - that everyone wants something different and will do something different. Whilst one woman may simply want her career and her friends, another woman way want a husband and lots of children.

The REAL idea of feminism comes behind accepting that we are women, and STILL having equal force to that of men.

By Anonymous, at 9:04 AM
However, I would also like to have the knowledge that I would be able to stand on my own two feet.

I understand. My mother and my girlfriends' mothers went from their father's homes to their husband's homes and envy our independence. They wished they'd lived alone and chased their dreams independently for a season, before assuming responsibility for a family (husband).

I retract my statement that these women are all lying to themselves. That was a gross generalization. What I should have said is that I was lying to myself to believe that I would find total fulfillment in being my own end-all and be-all. I simply don't believe women were intelligently designed for such a life.

But I'd also like to say that I'm not conforming to the idea of being feminine. I am feminine, and what I discovered, speaking only for myself, is that I lied to myself about who I really was: ball-busting, impervious, a-emotional, exclusively goal-oriented. That's who I had to make myself out to be to get where I am today in this man's world, but that's not who I was created to be. I was created to be loved and give love, be cared for and be a caregiver. But I squelched those desires because I thought them pathetic and weak, and I, of course, was altogether kick-ass and superseding men in my field. I found out that if those desires are not pathetic and weak, but even if they are, that's who I am. And those that don't like that are all invited to bite me.

Hope that better explains my position. I apologize if my inappropriate generalization was offensive.

By JacqueFromTexas, at 11:17 AM
Anon-
Though not all women want to be mothers or wives, the analysis of me seems to imply that no woman could possibly be happy in this role.-

By Lauren, at 1:52 PM
Hi, this is the choicer that created the thread.

I will start by saying that me posting as anonymous is due to simple laziness by my part to create an account. Please, I ask you not to make any judgements about me posting this as anonymous. If you wish to discuss something further with me, please, feel free to pm me at gaia, or e-mail me.

Now, about the thread... It really wasn't about how much of a feminist you where. Frankly, I had no idea who you where. I didn't even knew you had a gaia account. I onyl noticed that you had quoted menbers of the pro-choice guilt, untill I was about to press the submit button. The point of that thread was to bring up discussion about certain statements made by people on the pro-life side, which I personally, along with other pro-choicers find to be wrong. Your statement was one of them.

So, despite the way the thread went, my goal when creating the thread was not to say how un-feminist you are, nor to make some big analysis of you as a person. It was simply to bring up a statement that I personally found disgusting, and ask if anyone had any idea where that statement (and others, said by other people) came from.

My best wishes to you, and your familly.

By Anonymous, at 3:40 PM
Posting anon is fine, but it would help to if you could sign a name at the bottom so know if you are anon 1 or 2 ect. I've been getting quite a few anonymous posts the last few days and it would be helpful for discussion if I knew who was who.

As far as the pro-life quote, I'm not sure I understand. I have several gaian quotes on that page, but all are my responses to members of the pro-choice guild.

Regardless, I'm not angry that you found my blog. Like I said, I'm actually happy that you did and that Grip made the analysis because it opens the door to discussion.

By Lauren, at 5:01 PM
Ok, this is the thread creator again (I'll just sign RMarques for now on)

The pro-life statements that I meant where not mentioned in this site, at least not that I have seen. I meant statements such as "Choicers believe women need abortion to be equal to men!" have been said before in the pro-life guild, or in abortion threads (not sure about the latter). While these statements had been discussed before, they certainly were worth being brought up again (at least in my opinion).

I hope that clears things up.

RMarques

By Anonymous, at 6:14 PM
I see, thanks for clearing that up.

By Lauren, at 6:43 PM
This is going to be long, so please bear with me.

As I believe I implied in that Greatestjournal community (I was therapists, if you recall. Plus if you don;t already know, I'll make my Gaia identity clear now. I am Scare Tactic Propaganda, you may have known me before as Toga! Toga!), I have no issues with your general view of feminism. That wasn't even what the original post was about. My only issue with what you posted was that you were mocking other women. That was all.

The only reason the discussion went from some girl's comment to your entry to your entry itself was when another woman asked me where I found the quote. I linked her to the page and I do realize I made a snarky comment directed toward your journal in general. Looking back it was probably uncalled for, but I will say it had nothing to do with this discussion as it only had to do with our differing views of abortion.

In retrospect you didn't deserve the hostile treatment I started with, that was only due to my frustration with seeing not-as-feminine women being degraded for their appearances.

I have no problem with being feminine or with biblical womanhood, and as you may already know I have no problem with being less than traditionally feminine. My only problem is with a lack of choice to be either feminine, masculine, and in-between. I would feel the same way if the roles were reversed and not-so-masculine men were up for discussion. My main argument was that if we are striving for equality we must not feel pressured to be a certain person simply because of our sex.

The idea that you were anti-feminism stemmed from your blog entry in question. The belief was that you cannot be a feminist if you degrade other women for not being as feminine as you. It seems apparent now that that was not your intention, so now I don't know what it was. I will say that the childfree individuals were out of line to attack your child.

I don't think the issue we had was with biblical womanhood as much as it was with what we percieved to be your view of women who did not live in this way. Your critique of a certain choicer does not exactly help this image.

So let it be known that I never meant to attack you personally, and I apologize that it seemed that way. I also apologize that I came off as snarky as I did.

By Beth, at 7:29 PM
I'm glad you cleared up your identity. I thought that the greatest journal id and the gaian were the same person but I didn't want to assume anything.

You are right that my post was uncalled for. While I stand by the fact that there is certain irony in the situation, the way it was discussed was in no way respectful. There is a way to have intelligent discussion on the subject, and taking cheap shots isn't it.

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused about my critique of the choicer. Are we talking about my response to Grips analysis?

By Lauren, at 7:42 PM