How feminism and Christianity don't have to be mutually exclusive

The problem with the belief that feminism and Christianity are mutually exclusive is that it is based on assumptions and misconceptions from both sides about what the other represents. To be sure, there are aspects of feminism and Christianity that are incompatible, but there is a crucial thing they have in common, which if they only realised they held in common would result in a much more harmonious relationship. These days I call myself a feminist and have adopted a few practices and beliefs commonly associated with feminism, but they are not at all in conflict with the tenets of Christianity. In fact, Christianity would benefit from adopting the same practices and beliefs.

Having said that, I will always be a Christian before I am a feminist, and where there are conflicts of interest, I come down on the side of Christianity. So I will always be anti-abortion, for example. However, a lot of my reasons for being anti-abortion are bound up in feminist as well as Christian ideals, which I hope to explain over the course of this post.

To that end, here is Feminism 101 for Christians:
We don't hate men. We don't want women to have power over men. We aren't a bunch of bitter old women who lived in denial of our biology until it was too late and now regret the consequences. We desire a world for women and men that is free of violence, exploitation, discrimination and inequality. We fight the patriarchy, not men.

And here is Christianity 101 for feminists:
We don't hate women. We don't want to force our religion onto the rest of the world. We aren't a bunch of rich white middle class men bent on keeping the little wife silent, submissive and in the kitchen and bedroom. We desire a world for men and women that is free of violence, exploitation, discrimination and inequality. We fight Satan, not women.

Of course, feminists are always going to find Christians who are misogynistic, proselytising rich white men who believe that women need to be subdued and subservient to their husbands in all things. Just like Christians are always going to find feminists who hate men, want women to have power over men, and live in denial of their biology. The media, always fond of a good fight, will do everything it can to find extreme examples of any group of people, pitch them as representative of everyone in that group, put them in the same room and then sit back and enjoy the party.

And of course, my Feminism 101 and my Christianity 101 are very, very simplistic. There is so much more to both of them. But here's what I want to focus on: "We desire a world that is free of violence, exploitation, discrimination and inequality. We fight..."

The patriarchy. Satan. Both groups believe the other's enemy does not exist and that is where the misunderstanding lies, because both groups' enemy very definitely exists and in fact is the same entity.

Who is responsible for the rampant sexual exploitation of women and girls? Feminism will say patriarchy, Christianity will say Satan.

Who is responsible for the gross amount of violence women (and men) live with all around the world every day of their lives? Feminism will say patriarchy, Christianity will say Satan.

Sexploitation and violence are two of the major driving forces behind most of the world's misery. Of course, there are other factors. Human greed is responsible for the world's economic disparity and environmental degradation, and both of those are also huge contributors to the world's misery, but they are also tied up in a patriarchal/Satanic system.

The reason feminism and Christianity end up at loggerheads is because they arrive at the solution to the same problem from different angles. Feminism says that human beings can change their attitudes and behaviour to end the patriarchy, and the world will be so much better when that happens. Christianity says the world is a sick, dark place that can only be healed by the coming of Jesus Christ to defeat Satan and restore pure hearts and minds to the people. I believe that the Christian solution is the one that will work, which is why I will always call myself a Christian before I call myself a feminist.

Feminists have a beef with Christianity because of the notion that Christianity is inherently patriarchal and exploitative of women. They'll tell you that God is a man who serves men's interests at the expense of women's, and they'll quote you something like "wives submit to your husbands" as proof.

Christians have a beef with feminism because of the notion that women are exactly the same as men, and can and should be allowed to do all the things that men can. They'll point to women's demands for child care and the freedom to work outside the home, and blame them for the rising rate of broken families and lost childhoods.

They've both got it wrong.

The Bible makes it clear that women and men are equal but different and that they have a God-mandated responsibility to fulfil different roles. It is absolutely true that God identifies Himself as our Father, but this does not mean He is a man or that He favours men. On the contrary -- He gives men greater responsibility, and thus accountability, than women. Yes, it is true the Bible says that wives must submit to their husbands. But you know what else it says? That husbands must love their wives so much that they'll even be willing to die for them. Not so hard to yield to the leadership of someone who is required before God to put your needs ahead of his own anyway, is it?

Feminism does not and never has decreed that women should work outside the home. It merely advocates the freedom of women to pursue their desires as much as any man has. It also says "women who become mothers should be given the support they need to fulfil that role properly". This doesn't have to mean greater access to childcare, although that is one solution that has proliferated (and clearly doesn't work in most cases, because it is actually a patriarchal solution). In fact, many feminists will say what we need is a greater sense of community amongst women, we need to simplify our lives so that we're not so isolated physically or emotionally from each other, we need access to the information and support that will enable us to establish our role as mothers more effectively, and we need fathers to share the responsibility of parenthood equally. Christians, does that sound familiar?

I mentioned earlier that I am anti-abortion, and that my reasons for being so are tied up in feminist as well as Christian ideals. Here's how. Abortion is a patriarchal/Satanic solution to a patriarchal/Satanic problem. The problem is sexual exploitation, mostly perpetrated against women by men (although to be sure many women have sold themselves and each other the patriarchal/Satanic lie that sexual freedom leads to empowerment, ignoring the fact that their own biology means they shoulder a much greater burden of responsibility for their sexual activity than men do). Abortion is a solution that suits men's refusal to take responsibility for their actions MUCH more than it suits women's. It is a misogynistic myth that women choose abortion merely for convenience. They choose abortion because a) their boyfriends threaten to leave them if they don't get one, b) the conception occurred within an abusive relationship, c) they lack whatever support -- emotional, financial, practical -- from the father and the community at large that they need to raise a child, including a child with disabilities. On the surface, all these reasons look like convenience, and it is very, very easy for the patriarchy/Satanic system which is really behind them to blame women. "Well she was selfish enough to have an abortion, wasn't she? Now she has to live with the consequences, she can't come crying to me about it." No. We need to dig much, much deeper than that. Women have to live with the personal consequences but men don't, and therein lies the heart of the problem. So what's my solution, if I am anti-abortion? Keep sex for a committed, life-long, exclusive, loving and respectful relationship. It's called marriage in the Bible but you can call it whatever you want. The challenge for feminism is to embrace it.

And a couple of feminist concepts that Christians could challenge themselves to embrace are a much wider view of what is feminine and beautiful, and a belief that women's bodies are not sex objects that men are entitled to. Might sound like unfounded accusations against Christianity at first, but when you think about it, are Christians above any of the following? Obsession over body weight, size and shape, make-up, fashion, and beauty. The belief that female body hair is unfeminine. Drowning their daughters in pink clothing, toys, furnishings and accessories. Discomfort with public and extended breastfeeding. Belief that a woman walking the street at night is asking to be raped.

God may have made us sexual, but He did not mandate the objectification of women. And all of the above points to the objectification of women, yes, even the ubiquitous pink clothing on little girls. (Why? Because pink is the socially constructed poster colour for femininity and -- crucially -- its association with beauty, which graduates to sexuality by the time the girl starts growing breasts.) Being beautiful and/or a sex object is the most important thing women and girls are encouraged to do or see themselves as, and even Christians are often guilty of perpetuating that in some subtle and unconscious ways.

This was really brought home to me when I saw the way the story of "Clare" was handled by the media and people's reactions to it. It was her fault for going back to a hotel room with two footballers. She asked for it. Matty Johns isn't so bad; after all, he said he was sorry even though the only thing he actually did wrong was to cheat on his wife. She consented to sex with six footballers, well she must have because she didn't say no. Her story has only come out seven years later because she wants the fame and compensation money. I am sorry to say that once upon a time I would have not seen everything that was wrong with this picture. It took feminism, not Christianity, to make me see it for the horrific gang rape and subsequent victim-blaming party it really was. I do think she was naive and foolish to go back to a hotel room with two footballers, assuming that what she thought she was going to get was fabulous consensual sex (and that IS an assumption, how does anyone know she didn't just want their autographs so she could brag to her friends later that she even got to see their room? She was only 19, after all). But I think the way six footballers, five of whom were never named, took gross advantage of her naivety and vulnerability and yet have been turned into the martyrs of this story is disgusting. That's patriarchy/Satan's world in action for you.

So is feminism unbiblical? Is Christianity anti-women? I don't think so in either case, although it takes some digging below the surface of each to see it. I do acknowledge that aspects of each are inherently at odds, and there are aspects of feminism I don't agree with, but the overall vision of each is remarkably similar. The real enemy of both is the world's system, not each other, and as soon as feminists and Christians acknowledge that they have a common adversary, we could see one less bitter conflict in the world.

'Ja hear about the earthquake?

Here's The Age's report of the earthquake that hit Japan early this morning. A rather amusing dramatisation of it all, given that the epicentre was in Suruga Bay, which little ol' Numazu sits on and meant that we were in the thick of the action, so to speak.



The circles in these maps represent earthquake measuring stations. Japan has a very informative way of measuring earthquakes; instead of using the Richter scale as a blanket measurement, they rate the quake according to how it is felt at all the different stations. Logically this means that the closer you are to the epicentre, the more intense the reading, although if you look at the maps you'll see that in practice it doesn't always work that way. In Numazu, we felt it as a 4. In Tokyo, which the article focuses on (because, of course, no-one's heard of any of the places that were really affected by the quake), it was felt as a 3 or 4, but the article reports it as a 6.5 because that was its highest reading in a few places that really aren't anywhere near Tokyo at all. Gotta love media sensationalism.

This link will give you a really interesting run-down of the effects of each rating, if you'd like to know what 4 actually means in real life. It shows you that 6.5 is serious stuff, so I'm not saying it wasn't a big quake. Just that the article tries to make it sound a lot worse.



And for the curious, Numazu is located just to the north and slightly west of Izu Peninsula, which is the arrowhead sticking out at the bottom right of this map.

As for our own experience of it, I happened to be awake at the time because Cassia had only a few minutes earlier woken and asked for something to eat. She was lying in bed between us when the rumbling and shaking started and the ceiling light swung back and forth. I could hear the unwashed dishes rattling around in the kitchen too. Craig woke and sat up very suddenly. I was scared for about three seconds when it wasn't clear whether the quake was going to get stronger or not, and worried that Cassia would get really scared too. But her reaction was no more than to keep munching on the piece of bread and exclaim "What's the light doing?" Later on I opened our kitchen cupboards and noticed a few spice jars teetering on the edge (note to self: after large earthquakes, do not open top cupboard suddenly), and I'm sure the fridge was closer to the wall than it usually is. But other than that, no damage sustained.

So there you go. I've now felt a real Japanese earthquake. It was an interesting reminder of the uncertainty of life, actually. I'll be glad if I don't stay here long enough to experience anything stronger than a 4. (Well OK, maybe I could take a 5 lower.)

Excitement plus!

Today we finally made a visit to a few stores I had been intending to check out one of these days, and they were better than I expected.

One was called Full House. I knew it sold second hand furniture but inspection of its insides today revealed that it's also a big op shop. Woohoo! An op shop in Numazu... my life is complete.

Another one was Hard Off and Off House combined. (There's an "Off" franchise for second-hand goods in Japan, including Book Off and some other kind of Off that I forget now.) It's a more upmarket "recycle superstore". This is the kind of place that has air conditioning, jingly music playing, wide aisles, bright lights and well-organised rows of merchandise. The quality of the items for sale is generally better, and occasionally the prices are not much lower than you'd get brand new. Still an exciting find, and a place I expect to check out again some time before we leave here.

The other very exciting place was a discount supermarket. Think Aldi. Here I can get cans of coconut milk for 88 yen (at Ito Yokado they cost about four times that), 10kg bags of rice for 2400 yen (about 25% cheaper than I've seen anywhere else), and... and... and baking soda. Now all I have to do is figure out how to use our oven and I can make banana muffins again. Woohoo!

***** ***** *****
Location of the discount supermarket and Hard Off/Off House: You know the road that runs parallel to the Gotemba train line between Ooka and Numazu, and how it curves around to run directly east-west through Numazu? (Sports Depo is on that road.) Well, they're all right near the curve in the road. The supermarket is a green building on the road, Hard Off and Off House are set back a little further.

Location of Full House: Oh man. It's too hard to explain. It's right up near the main highway through the northern part of Numazu, but I know that's not enough information to find it. Post me a comment and I'll show it to you on a map.

One year

We're officially half way through this gig. We arrived here one year ago today.

Here's what Craig and Cassia looked like:


And here's what I looked like:


A year later, Numazu hasn't changed in the slightest. But I suppose I must have, because it doesn't seem quite as bewildering or exhausting any more. When I step out the front entrance of our apartment building and look down the street to one of Numazu's larger intersections a couple of blocks away, I'm not disoriented. The Family Mart convenience store on the corner is familiar. The pedestrian overpass has been used many times. I know that if I take a right at that intersection, it will take me to many places I have been before and from which I can find my way back without a problem.

Looking over our north balcony, I see Ishibashi Plaza three blocks away. This is the main shopping centre I frequent at least twice a week. To think the first time I attempted to walk there I got lost and wound up in an industrial area! Inside Ishibashi Plaza is the fruit and veg market I buy my green groceries from (I haven't learnt its name) and Ito Yokado, the main supermarket and cheap department store in the same vein as Kmart or Target where I get my other groceries. In the last month I have finally learnt how to say that I don't have a Point Card and that I don't need another enviro-bag rebate card -- although I still don't know how to refuse plastic bags. Shopping is not so daunting or frustrating a task any more. I've learned where all "my" ingredients are, and have a pretty good idea of what I will and won't be able to find here. And all the rest can go hang. It's probably got pork or seafood in it anyway.

The day we arrived was hot and humid, and the cicadas were out in full force. When I awoke the next morning I immediately panicked that we had a gas leak in our kitchen; upon stepping outside for a moment I realised it was the buzzing of the cicadas. (We also don't have gas in this place -- everything's electric, but I didn't know that at the time.) I don't know if the little critters are louder this year than they were last year but I tell you what, if we really had a gas leak as loud as this in our apartment, we would have spontaneously combusted three weeks ago when one of our downstairs neighbours farted. But that's what disorientation will do to you, I guess. Everything seems louder, brighter, bigger and scarier than it really is.

There are many, many things about Numazu, and Japan in general I suspect, that still puzzle and annoy me. The way fire trucks go down our street at 10:30 p.m. with sirens blazing even though there's no traffic. The random announcements broadcast through the public speakers at 7:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Strangers good-naturedly giving Cassia junk food and useless little plastic toys. The rubbish disposal system. The bathroom sink, shower and kitchen plug holes which are designed to collect as much revolting slimy smelly gunk as possible and be very difficult to clean.

But I can survive. I've done my first year, it can only get better (or at least stay the same) for the second. And now I'll have a baby to help pass the time in 2010 too.

And to be fair, there are a few things I quite enjoy here. 100-yen stores. The fact that virtually everything's free for Cassia. The way people keep to the left on escalators at busy train stations. The extremely well organised and widespread public transport system. Not having/needing a car.

So, here's to another year in Numazu. May it fly.