The take-over of Afghanistan by the Taliban has left us with a whole variety of emotions. We fear for an entire nation thrust into a state of chronic uncertainty. A group of lawless men, who have been indoctrinated in the most extreme tenets of Islam, have been let loose in a large country to do whatever they wish. These fighters are the ‘graduates’ of thousands of madrassas, religious schools where the only things taught are the tenets of the Koran. This enables them to regard anyone who has participated in any aspect of modern culture or systems of government as enemies of their faith. Potentially, men and boys can be summarily punished or even executed if they may have been contaminated with unislamic ideologies. The legal system will now be handed over to mullahs and judges who believe that it is their task to purify society according to a fantasy model of Islam which never actually existed. In some way, they believe it is still possible to create an idealised Islamic state which will overtake and replace the westernised mores of the urbanised elite.
The pain that most of us feel is for the half of the Afghan population who are female. Prospects of secondary education are probably removed at a stroke for a generation of young girls. Young women will be forced into marriages with Taliban fighters without any choice in the matter. The word marriage, in many cases, will not describe what is happening. It is the forcible abduction and rape of the innocent. There is a swathe of women who have been educated over the past twenty years since the last Taliban period of rule. They have become competent professionals in a variety of roles, and they now face an uncertain future. Will they be forced back into the home and rendered invisible and powerless? Things may not turn out to be as awful as they were under the so-called Islamic state in Iraq, but there will still be a massive amount of suffering. This will extend to anyone who has an aspiration for human flourishing of a kind that is linked to the ideals of our modern age.
Religiously motivated abuse of women has been common in many cultures across the world. There is, of course, an extensive literature to help us to understand why women fare badly in some religious settings and the political systems inspired by them. I make no claim to have mastered this genre of writing and what I say here will be what I have observed over the years in the UK in the way women have been treated by church and society. Like many people of my generation, I absorbed the idea early on that most women would expect to spend a lot of time in the kitchen, preparing meals and making a home spotless for the male provider of the household. Some women in the 50s did go out to work of course, but the disparity of wages and opportunities was such that the man’s job always took precedence over the woman’s.
During my time at university, women were present there but in relatively small numbers. There was still a generation of women alive who had been successfully entered for degrees in the 1920s but who had been unable to graduate according to the rules that had applied at the time. The other thing I was well aware of was the way that the Anglican priesthood seemed to be a breeding ground of what we might describe as low-level misogyny. Some clergy seemed to relish the masculinity of the priesthood in ways that I felt to be unhealthy. The absence of women in the sanctuary often also gave rise a certain amount of what can only be described as homoerotic gossip. Although my preferred church background is liberal catholic, the ‘dressing-up’ side of things did not always make me feel comfortable. It was part of the way of things, but looking back, there was much that probably needed to be challenged as it, directly or indirectly, helped to feed a culture that was certain to humiliate or belittle women.
There is a great deal more to be said about the respective roles of men and women in a religious setting. My broad take on the issue is that it is all primarily about power. Culturally and psychologically men have, over the centuries, expected to dominate women, whether in the family, the workplace or the locale of religious activity. Rationally this desire for control might appear to reflect some aspect of male sexuality. There is, I believe, a deeper reason for this male struggle for control. Men are subconsciously in fear of women. They are not frightened of them physically. Rather the fear is of women’s ability to operate with what we call emotional intelligence. Women create bonds and friendships with other women with relative ease. They manage situations of emotional complexity with a deft instinct for finding the right words. They seem to find it easy to create bonds with children and the young. In a church pastoral setting they are often likely to have the empathy required to help another individual through a crisis. In summary, some women manage many of the tasks of priesthood with a skill which not all male priests find easy to show. That female adaptability to some of the tasks of priesthood does not endear them to male clergy, especially the insecure personalities and those whose sense of masculinity is bound up with the identity of priesthood.
The insecurity of some male clergy in the face of women, whether ordained or lay, reflects the same insecurities that also make some men wife-beaters and misogynists. Male insecurity is, I believe, at the heart of the issue with the Taliban and the difficulty that every Muslim society has with giving women their proper place. While there is probably little we can do to change the culture and belief tenets of Muslims, there is one thing we can do in our own settings. We can challenge misogyny within the structures of the church however it is manifest. Someone, in response to one of my posts, spoke about the disempowerment in the church felt by female laity. They were referring to the double impediment of being both a lay person and a woman. This meant that in relation to church clerical male decision making, they were almost invisible.
I want to finish this post by celebrating a number of women whose voices have played a crucial part in the way the character of this blog has taken shape. Each of them is active somewhere in the church, trying to change the culture of Christian male dominance. Among the bravest is the work of Kate Andreyev who has taken on the entire leadership cohort of the Church Society/ReNew complex. Whatever her precise arguments are with this group, it is worth noting the fact that the power bloc she has taken on, is one that is still openly committed to preserve male privilege for the conservative wing of the Church. It seems extraordinary in the 21st century that the Church of England should be tolerating such institutional bias against women’s voices. Here, however, is one brave articulate woman trying to make her case heard over against this immensely powerful block which does so much to exclude the influence of women. Is this so different from the work of the Taliban in their cultural subjugation of women? Another woman making waves has been Rachel White. Her voice, protesting about the protocols to choose those recommended as ordinands, had to be removed, but it continues to be available as a published archived article in the Church Times. We also have the powerful witness of Fiona Gardner. Her book records meticulous research about the abuse of both sexes, but also reveals the way that, as a lay woman, she was treated almost contemptuously by powerful men in the Church. Then there are the voices of survivor women who have made themselves known to the blog. Some are anonymous, like Mary, Trish or English Athena. Others have allowed their names and experiences to be fully visible, like Jane Chevous and Janet Fife. Janet has contributed by writing posts, which sometimes draw on her experience as a survivor. Each of these individuals, and many others, has enriched the blog, not least by bringing the women’s perspective on power issues within the Church.
We need to return to the original event that set me off on this reflection -the Taliban threatening the voices and power of women in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Our response to this horror of female suppression must be a readiness to re-examine our own collusion in religiously inspired misogyny. We have hinted at the fact the Church of England still allows institutional subjection of women whether in large evangelical networks or Anglo-Catholic conclaves. While these religious impediments will not be removed quickly from Anglicanism, it behoves the rest of us to challenge these assumptions in whatever way we can. If we long for the Muslim faith to tolerate the full flourishing of women within their societies, we must, at the same time, put effort into our challenging what many of us see as the residue of religiously inspired misogyny within our own church.
Some of the “women” who will be handed over to middle aged men are 15. We’re talking about the rape of children.
I’m currently reading volume II of “a History of Women”, about the Middle Ages. Fascinating, if requiring concentration. It unpacks the perspective of men, particularly powerful men, in how both sexes fitted into God’s vision. It was often about who owned a woman’s body, and therefore controlled it/her. The theological stuff was overwhelmingly written by celibate men, but often quite subtle. In practice, more shall we say, unfair.
When I first went to work for the C of E in Bath and Wells one of the disturbing aspects was the level of sexualised banter where double entendre predominated. It felt a bit like a throwback to the laddish culture of the 1980s. There was rarely a staff meeting without some comment and the associated sniggers – it seemed there was an excitement around – perhaps daring to refer to sex (the forbidden subject) in the church context? It was often started by the men but responded to by women, it was essentially based on low-level misogyny.
I remember one particular incident when a girl’s school choir came to sing at some social event. Two of the more senior diocesan staff (male) were commenting to each other about the girls – as I turned round with a stony face, one said ‘watch out – it’s miss political correctness’ and they moved off.
The culture of the church is founded on sexism and many women learn to ignore, become resigned to it, or internalise the implicit message – it’s a lonely business protesting.
Oh dear, Fiona. I tend to categorise that sort of behaviour as infantile. And quite often, stupid. Probably, if the church ordained men who are proper grown ups, and reasonably intelligent, it would stop.
Sorry English Athena but I doubt that’s true. The C of E in places has a really sexist and misogynist culture which is attracting these types of men into it. It’s a systemic, cultural problem, not a case of a few rotten apples. Secrecy, power and control, manipulation and abuse are a part of the Anglican church’s DNA, as is the Male headship theology. Until this is knocked on the head men who want to work somewhere they can openly consider women as inferior creatures will be attracted to it.
My experience chimes with Fiona’s, unfortunately.
2 years ago on a night on an Anglican diocesan ministry course, the male leader winked at his colleague, said this is a bit risque then proceeded to show a 30 year old video that was very dated and showed sexual stereotyping and mocked an old woman for not wanting to be touched. Unacceptable content and didn’t have anything to do with the rest of the evening. This was the same evening with the racist content. I faced a barrage of hostility for reporting.
I thought it was harassment but later found out it was assault- I went to shake the hand of a man. We were going to be volunteering on the same team at a Christian festival. I held my hand out, he grabbed both my upper arms and bit me on the neck. I had to report and report and report to get it dealt with. My male supervisors were saying oh he’s just very demonstrative, oh hes eccentric, we’re just a huggy team. I was victim blamed for reporting. Eventually I insisted it be dealt with by the highest ranking female members of staff I could find.
He was de volunteered and removed from the festival.
Worryingly, Dracula is a Baptist minister. If this is how he behaves in front of his shift lead and his wife, it really worries me to think – what happens when no ones watching.
Have also been patted on the arse by a vicar a few years ago, causing me to leap out of the way.
The smear campaign/ shunning/ lying from the rector of my ‘inclusive’ church is also part of this picture. He is able to get away with this in what I am discovering is a diocese that behaves in a really misogynistic manner.
The problem with this casual misogyny, casual sexism, casual sexual harassment is that its significantly worse in Christian/church contexts (yeah yeah #notallchurches) than in my normal life.
This just wouldn’t pass in any of my workplaces, social circles, friendship groups, places of study.
So why is it so endemic in parts of the church? (Con Evo and Anglican worst in my experience)
#churchtoo your experience of shunning and lying from an incumbent of an ‘inclusive’ church – my experience also and in my case he has so far got away with this because the archdeacon refuses to accept that clergy either shun or tell lies. After months trying to resolve the matter, I’ve reluctantly submitted a CDM Form. It could have been avoided but the lies are deliberate and nasty and several requests for them to be withdrawn have been met with a wall of silence.
Misogyny? I don’t know.
I am sorry that happened to you Petra. These experiences are all too common.
Yeah, I would say misogyny due to my observations of the way women are treated by a number of these characters.
I also was very reluctant to bring a CDM. but after 8 months with disinformation and obfuscation and a total lack of action from the rector and archdeacon (who similar to your experience doesn’t accept that clergy lie), I didn’t feel there was any other choice to get the necessary action to protect others.
At the end of the day, I decided it was safest to lay a clear paper trail in case something else happens in that church, because it is really unsafe for some of the groups it purports to support
Clergy do lie. .And for the same reasons as any other human being. Sometimes it’s totally off the wall. The widow of a friend got a weird phone call from the assistant Bishop who was in charge of ministering to the families of deceased clergy. In brief, “You won’t need me since the former incumbent is visiting”. She wasn’t. Never had. The widow wasn’t asked, just told. I eventually realised the incumbent had been asked if she was visiting and just said yes to look good. Thus depriving the widow of pastoral support.
Back in 2001 a senior diocesan clergyman told me, ‘The real reason there are no women on the bishop’s senior staff team is, if there were, we wouldn’t be able to tell the same kinds of jokes at meetings.’
That diocese did eventually have women on the senior staff – including a bishop – but it’s disturbing that such an attitude should persist right into the new millennium.
Fair does, ladies. And #churchtoo, maybe you should have called the police. I have not encountered that sort of behaviour! But I have encountered the childish idiocy sort of stuff. What you describe is wholly different, and wholly unacceptable. Blimey, there are some horrible men out there.
Off topic. The Guardian has an article on Andrew Graystone’s book about John Smyth. Published on 2nd September.
Great. I have my copy on order. It’s called Bleeding for Jesus. Can you give us the headline of the Guardian article, Athena? That will make it easier to google.
The article seems to be called the same! It’s under Anglicanism.
Found it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/21/bleeding-for-jesus-book-tells-story-of-qc-who-pitilessly-abused-young-men
And actually this isn’t off topic, since the Iwerne movement used to be noted for its misogyny (aka ‘complementarianism’).
😀!
You do well to put ‘complementarianism’ in inverted commas, as the concept itself (quite apart from any perversion of it) is unexceptionable, being utterly basic at such fundamental levels as biology and romance. It means that men and women are differently made and with different biology-derived abilities and make-ups that dovetail together, and I doubt many people would have cause to doubt that.
Yeah, but if people use these terms as a way of disguising the fact that women are being put down, which they do, one avoids the term.
Hence my reference to ‘perversions’.
Every concept that one needs to use has to have *some* word for it, otherwise we are limited in what topics we can talk about. The topics will still exist in reality, so we ought to be free to talk about them. However -‘ism’s are alternative points of view. There is no alternative point of view to the idea that men and women are complementary. But the idea of being complementary does not imply superiority or inferiority, just dovetailing.
I think the vast majority of the lgbtq community and most feminists would hold that complementarian theology is merely one view amongst many, and that its existence serves the interests of the patriarchy
It was pushed hard by evo churches in the 80s as a response to gay rights and feminist movements
I am reading the making of biblical Womanhood. Beth Allison Barr . Its great. She is a scholar on this so argues way better than I can on here
Of course they might ‘hold’ that, because it would be in their personal interests to do so. People ‘hold’ all kinds of things, which is why we need to examine which of those are evidenced and which are wishful-thinking ideologies. Secondly, appeal to ‘the patriarchy’ has become a mantra, but the amount of basis in reality it has can be seen from the fact that we live in a country where by law for over a decade a child ‘ought not’ to be regarded as though they need a father. Do they ‘need’ a mother? Yes. That is inequality, and counter to nature and common sense and justice. Certainly you can try to argue that a country where a child by law needs no father is a patriarchy. But then you are changing the meaning of ‘patriarchy’ (it means father-rule not father-suppression) so the argument would fail and be downgraded to an unsupported assertion.
You’re absolutely correct, Chris. But you’re not allowing for certain sensitivities. I was brought up in the 50s, and it didn’t take me long to notice that the “women’s jobs” were dull and boring, and low status, and anything fun was classed as men’s stuff! There is a context for every statement, and each word or phrase carries baggage for which you have to allow.
My last post was a reply to a much earlier post.
Christopher Shell, I think you will struggle if you wish to maintain the term ‘complementarian’ in a sort of pure form, quite apart from any way it may be practised. This unfortunately completely ignores the fact that where complementarianism is practiced, there are always power dynamics at play, the discussion and exposure of which are the essential subject of this blog. Complementarianism in practice usually functions as a highly developed power structure in which women are restricted to certain ‘lesser’ spheres of activity, leaving all the important, decision-making roles to men. It’s a convenient theological underpinning for keeping women tightly controlled, and I’m quite sure this is about among other things the subconscious fear of women that Stephen speaks about in his post. And in the unhealthiest scenarios, especially in fundamentalist contexts, complementarianism creates a hospitable space for all kinds of abuse in church and home. Because of the realities of power dynamics, I would suggest that your attempt to untether the concept from any way it may be practised in the church simply doesn’t work.
I agree
Thanks for this post
“ Male insecurity is, I believe, at the heart of the issue with the Taliban and the difficulty that every Muslim society has with giving women their proper place.”
And what – exactly – is your evidence for this belief? I’m incredibly suspicious of suggestions like this, which ground anything that the author believes to be unsavoury in some hidden psychological factor. Hidden, that is, to the hopeless bigots – the same author (conveniently enough) is capable of seeing round the corners of the labyrinth, and come to a judgement.
It is far more reasonable (and charitable) to suggest that there are genuine principles in play here – principles that can’t be deconstructed or wished away by insisting on some projected insecurity. Those principles need engaging with, and discussing, and their presuppositions examined. This Freudian turn to the subject does very little but tell us something about the one doing the theorising.
So your theory about men who put women down is?….. Just hatred of a weaker, easy target? Cowardice? An all consuming desire for violence? I’ll go with that.
on a related point the Christianity Today podcast series on Mark Driscoll – I remember a church planting conference he did together with Steve Timmis in London – had an episode on that church’s impact on women – much rings true from similar churches.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/rise-and-fall-of-mars-hill/mars-hill-mark-driscoll-podcast-things-we-do-women.html
Driscoll is next-level grim: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mars-hill-church-closes-branches-after-founder-mark-driscoll-calls-women-penis-homes-9723429.html%3famp
Yes ghastly man … I though the earlier link was bad enough! But the link Jon sent included an interesting analysis on ‘militant masculinity’ seen as a response to loss of identity initially linked to the Cold War and then to 9/11 – where Islamic men were seen as more masculine so Christian men needed to ‘man up’ through this dynamic of headship and submission – in other words a paradigm of dominating women. Because Christianity had been weakened by women and gay people … (you couldn’t make it up)…
One person who had attended Mars Hill said it was a ‘rape culture’. Once again toxic theology used to cover up abuses.
I have thought for long enough that Islam’s problem with women has a theological link with their rejection of a Trinitarian understing of God. Christian theology has understood that submission (referring to Christ) in no way demonstrates inferiority or a lesser status. Unfortunately Christian outworking of that has not always seen its application to women.
That’s an interesting thought and you may be right.
However, saying ‘Islam’s problem with women’ is like saying ‘Christianity’s problem with women’. There are probably as many variations in Muslim beliefs and practices as there are among Christians. The Taliban and Isis are at the extreme end of Islam, but there are also Muslims who argue that the Koran gives no basis for the oppression of women and treat women as equals. I have been privileged to know and be friendly with a number of the latter – one even came to my ordination as a priest. I respect Muslims and feel there is quite a lot we can learn from them.
As ever, it’s not easy to untangle religion and culture.
My point was that submission in Islam means lesser and lower status, the Christian understanding of Christ (or perhaps I shoud say the traditional understanding) is one of equality of honur, status and being; Philippians 2 being the best delineation of that. If the Church is true to that theology it must view its women in like manner but that is not saying that it has or does. What I would say is that the theology points in that direction whereas the Islamic unitary view of God cannot.