14-year-old Blogger Shot By Taliban

Malala Yousafazi, a 14-year-old Pakistani girl who blogged about daily life in the war-torn Swat Valley, has been shot in the head and neck by the Taliban.

Photo Credit: Veronique de Viguerie, Getty Images

Nosheen Abbas, of BBC Urdu, told NBC news that Malala was "very passionate about education, and she spoke about that a lot to me. It angered her deeply when girls' schools were closed, and she was affected, and her class fellows were affected..."

Malala was nominated for the International Children's Peace Prize in 2011 for her writing.

The attempt at her life is a terrible act of violence. Nobody should be shot for expressing and writing their thoughts. And nobody should be shot over women's right to education.

Stay strong Malala! The world needs you.

For more information, and to watch a short documentary about Malala, click here.

[Melany] The Last Name Project

In this new series co-hosted by from two to one and The Feminist Mystique, we will be profiling an array of individuals and couples about their last name decisions upon marriage or what they expect to choose if they marry. The goal is to explore how individuals make decisions about their last name, and to highlight the many possibilities. We will be posting profiles periodically and encourage you to stay connected via Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest.  If you would like to participate in this series, email Danielle at danielle [at] fromtwotoone [dot] com or Shannon at hill [dot] shannonp [at] gmail [dot] com.  

The following post is from Melany, a high school history teacher living in California. 

I have been married for just over a year and we are currently raising two feline children, but plan to start a family of human children within the next ten years. I identify myself as a feminist, which my husband constantly mocks me for, and I come from a family filled with divorces.

I often imagined as a young girl that I would get married – and what I thought about the most was not the wedding details or who the man would be, but instead what my last name would change to. Growing up I was very distant from my father, and from his family for the most part. He had been an alcoholic since he was a teenager, and I became an angry teenager who was bitter that he had abandoned me. I could not wait until I was an adult who could find a man to love me the way my father never did and take my husband’s new name in place of my father’s.

This was my mindset when I became an engaged to the man who is now my husband. I had every intention of ditching my dad’s last name as soon as I could and taking the last name of the love of my life. I of course gave my dad the conciliatory call to tell him I was engaged, but I had no intentions of having him walk me down the aisle, and quite frankly, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to invite him to the wedding given the comments he made while he was drunk at many other big family events in the past.

And then everything changed. Not overnight, but my dad began go to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
completely on his own accord for the first time in his life. He had been in treatment many times in the past, but it was always as a result of a threatened divorce or as a result of a court order. He told me that it was my engagement that inspired him. He said he realized that I was about to be married, and he had missed my whole life up until that point. He told me he wanted to get healthy to be there for when we had his first grandkids. He also began reaching out to me more, and apologized to me for the first time in his life for what he had done to me and to our relationship with each other as a result of his drinking. He met my fiancé, and for the first time, actually remembered meeting him afterwards.

We began talking more on the phone, and I decided that I would invite him to the wedding, but I would still have my mom, and not him, walk me down the aisle. My one year of engagement became a pivotal point in my life – I was reconnecting with the man I wanted to do away with so badly while at the same time I was getting ready to make the biggest commitment of my life my new man.

My husband and I talked about the last name change. He was fine if I kept my “old name,” but was not open to creating a new name together or taking my name. While I have feminist tendencies, this was perfectly fine with me as taking my husband’s name matched my original childhood plans. We plan on having children, and I did not want them to have a hyphenated name that combined their parents’ original last names, and I wanted to have the same last name as my children. Based on everything up to this point, the big decisions were made– my dad would be invited to the wedding, but my mom would walk me down the aisle, and I would take my husband’s name.

And then everything changed. And this time, it was overnight. My dad was taken to the hospital by an
ambulance about a month before our wedding. He was conscious, but in a lot of pain, and the doctors didn’t know exactly what was wrong with him. He was put in the Intensive Care Unit and over the next three weeks he was transferred in and out of ICU, went in and out of consciousness, and eventually was in a coma and due to an internal problem, complications from surgery, and a lifelong of drinking. He had organ failure and the doctors told me that if he did wake up that he would most likely have permanent brain damage. The hospital staff suggested that we take him off of life support – and since he wasn’t married at the time and I was the oldest child, it was my call on whether to take him off of life support or keep hooked up to machines fighting for a shell of his old life. I talked to one of his brother’s that had been showing up a lot at the hospital, my mom, and my husband, but ultimately it was my decision. My dad’s brother that had been there for the duration of his time in the hospital suggested I wait until after the wedding to decide so that I didn’t have to plan a wedding and a funeral at the same time, but I just couldn’t wrap my head around making my dad wait to die so that I could start my new life. About a week before the wedding, I made the decision to let my dad go and began making arrangements for his cremation and funeral while managing my final bridal gown fitting, hair and make up tests, rehearsal and dinner, and all of the other things that go along with planning your own small wedding. When we went in to get our marriage certificate a few days after my dad’s death I decided that I would keep my original last name and add my husband’s last name. No hyphen, no middle name change, just a new addition to the end. As a teacher with a long last name, most of my students just call me by the first part – my original last name. It always makes me feel more connected with my dad and remember our past. Losing my dad forced me to accept our past relationship as it was, and I am now very glad to have kept that whole part of my identity rather than abandoning it for a false reality of a new start at life.

German Court Bans Male Circumcision on Infants

Source: TIME

A week or two ago, a German court banned male circumcision on infants in the city of Cologne. Many are upset, claiming that the ruling is grounded in antisemitism or anti-Muslim (probably anti-Turkish) sentiments and that the ruling violates religious freedom. While the ruling is political, I don't think it violates religious freedom and hope that the ruling encourages others - especially Americans - to think more critically about male circumcision.

In a pluralistic society, it is critical that we respect the religious beliefs of others and allow others to practice their religion as they see fit. But being able to practice one's own religion does not allow you to force your religion on others (I've written about this re: the contraception mandate), even on your children. And your right to religious freedom does not allow you to inflict bodily injury or cause physical harm to another.

In the West, circumcision is primarily performed on infants, who are unable to consent to the procedure. It is generally performed for non-medical reasons, primarily because of religious beliefs or (especially in the United States) for cosmetic purposes. The procedure is incredibly painful, permanent, affects the child for the rest of his life, can dull sexual sensation, and can lead to bleeding and infection. Recently, for example, in NYC, 11 babies contracted herpes through a (rare) circumcision ritual; 2 of them developed brain damage and 2 died.

As a feminist, I believe in bodily autonomy. I think no parent should have the right to cut off a part of their son's penis without their son's permission. If a boy is of an age where he can consent and decides to get circumcised, then that should be allowed. But infant circumcision allows for a non-medically necessary, permanent surgery to be performed on a child without his consent. Moreover, as much as banning male circumcision can be said to be politically motivated, racist, or to violate a group's religious freedom, allowing for a religious exemption belies another form of racism, cultural imperialism, and the West's own religious hierarchy. US federal law, for example, currently “makes criminal any non-medical procedure performed on the genitals [of a girl].” There is no religious exemption, and few people protest that this violates religious freedom. Few protest the banning of female circumcision in Western countries or in Africa and the Middle East and it is popularly condemned as barbaric and misogynistic. Moreover, when the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that doctors could perform a ceremonial pinprick or "nick" a girl's genitals to prevent them from receiving a full circumcision overseas, the move was met with outrage from the feminist community. So why is it ok to do more than "nick" a boy's genitals - even for religious or cultural reasons? Cologne's ban on infant circumcision doesn't violate the parent's rights; it preserves the boy's.

Theology of the Body: Contraception, Complementarianism, and Misogyny

The following post is part of Rachel Held Evan's series on mutuality. It explores the relationship between Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, the (re)birth of gender complementarianism and "New Catholic Feminism," contraception, and the Catholic denunciation of feminism and gender equality.

Many Catholics were still upset about Humanae Vitae, the encyclical written by Pope Paul VI that reaffirmed the Church's teachings against contraception, when Pope John Paul II became pope in 1978. There were whispers, however, that the new pope was more progressive and would adopt a different position on contraception than his predecessor. Pope John Paul II quickly made it clear that he would do no such thing. Instead, he devoted his pontificate to the theme of human sexuality and the condemnation of what he called the “culture of death.” This culture of death was portrayed as a modern phenomenon where people committed grave sins against humanity, including contraception, abortion, and euthanasia.[1] In an attempt to transform the culture of death and the modern view of human sexuality (they were often seen as intrinsically linked), Pope John Paul II devoted almost all of his Wednesday general audiences from 1979-1984 to lectures on the subject of human love and sexuality, which today are known as his Theology of the Body.

The thematic goal of Theology of the Body is to transform the current culture of death into a culture of life through marital spirituality and sexuality. The pope devotes a great deal of attention to marital sex and propagates a theology that is, in its essence, the very antithesis of Saint Augustine’s. This theology is grounded in a belief that marital sex is not only licit, but also holy and sacramental. Pope John Paul II uses elaborate metaphors to convey his argument, repeatedly comparing sexual intercourse to Catholic rituals and theological concepts. He states that marriage “signifies the relationship between Christ and His Church” and that the conjugal act, “the giving of each other freely” mirrors the redemptive act of Christ’s crucifixion.[2]He also contends that marriage reflects the Trinity, “an inscrutable communion of [three] Persons” that is fully realized in their sexual union. In this way, marriage constitutes a "primordial sacrament," a sign that communicates the mystery of God's Trinitarian life through husband and wife.[3]          

            After firmly establishing his lyrical approbation of marital sex, Pope John Paul II devoted his last fifteen lectures to explaining and promoting the values propagated in Humanae Vitae and the Church’s position on contraception. Continuing with his metaphor of sex as a sacrament, he proclaims:

As ministers of a sacrament which is constituted by consent and perfected by conjugal union, man and woman are called to express that mysterious language of their bodies in all the truth which is proper to it…According to the criterion of this truth, which should be expressed in the language of the body, the conjugal act signifies not only love, but also potential fecundity. Therefore it cannot be deprived of its full and adequate significance by artificial means. In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other. This is what the Encyclical teaches (cf. HV 12). Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.[4]

Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is thus obviously derived from and dependent on Humanae Vitae’s rejection of contraception. However, while Theology of the Body is often criticized for being simply another reiteration of Humanae Vitae, Pope John Paul II’s rhetoric is decidedly unique. His theology focuses, more than ever before in Catholic history, on the positive aspects of marital sexuality. He builds a new Catholic sexual ethic, one that does not simply forbid contraception on theological grounds, but links rejection of contraception to spiritual and marital fulfillment.

            This connection, and the sexual ethic espoused in Theology of the Body, has had a profound effect on how Catholics think about contraception. The book has achieved an almost cult-like status in contemporary Catholic culture, and its popularity has only blossomed over the past ten years. Countless interpretations have been preached in sermons, printed in books, broadcast on Catholic television, and discussed in church groups. Its effect is, therefore, far reaching and has dramatically changed the Catholic culture of contraception from dissent at the time of Humanae Vitae to acceptance of the doctrine as an infallible truth; agreeing with the Church’s position on contraception has become a central aspect of Catholic identity.

Feminist Backlash

            The construction of gender found in Humanae Vitae and elaborately propagated in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body relies heavily on the ideas of gender complementarity. This idea, that the spiritual and physical fulfillment of men and women is derived from their complementary interaction, forms the very basis for the Catholic sexual ethic that has developed since Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s pontificate.

John Paul II’s first few lectures in his Theology of the Body seem to have been greatly influenced by feminist dialogue on the distinction between gender and biological sex. He departs, however, from feminist thought with his “discourse on difference,” the idea that God did not just create male and female, but man and woman; two distinctly separate genders with unique and divinely proscribed attributes.[5]He writes, for example, in a 1995 letter addressed specifically to Catholic women:

Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: Men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the “human” as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way…Womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. It is only through the duality of the “masculine” and the “feminine” that the “human” finds full realization.”[6]

Thus, just as Humanae Vitae contends that sexual pleasure and procreation are intrinsically linked in conjugal sex, John Paul II propagates that neither gender can be defined or exist independently from the other.[7]

Proponents of this construction of male and female believe that gender is determined exclusively on the basis of biological sexual characteristics and physical sexual capacities.[8]Womanhood and women’s bodies are viewed as intrinsically linked to motherhood, the purpose for which God created woman. Pope John Paul II elaborates that:

The woman’s body, in its typical expression of femininity and creative love, becomes, like the Garden of Eden, the place of the conception of new man. In her womb, the conceived man assumes his specific human aspect before being born.  In giving birth, therefore, woman is fully aware of the mystery of creation, which is renewed in human generation.[9]

While this metaphor of childbearing women as God-like creators has potentially positive implications for an increased social appreciation of women’s roles as mothers, it also has potentially dangerous implications when motherhood is not simply one element of being a woman, and is rather ascribed as its essential defining feature.[10]

Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, with its explicit connection between motherhood and womanhood, thus reinforces traditional gender roles. Its latent suggestion is that Catholic women should embrace their roles as mothers, and devote their time and energy to their family. As a result, the question of contraception and its high use among Catholics is frequently blamed on feminism. Rhetoric against contraception in Catholic circles tends to be accompanied by a denouncement of a culture where women have joined the workforce and lost or compromised their roles as wife and mother. It manifests its misogynist undertones by frequently blaming contraceptive use on women’s “selfish” ambitions to leave the home and have a career in the public sphere. A woman featured on a Catholic website exemplifies this type of discourse when she describes the beginning of the destruction of marital sexuality:

The sexual revolution screamed for women to get a job, to take control of their bodies, to have control over their sexual reproduction. When a woman responded to the sexual revolution with an attitude that her body was specifically hers to give or keep, all else became secondary. Most specifically, this attitude ended up in the marriage bed where a woman was now "expected" to withhold herself even if it was just to make a statement. It was all about "her" and not about "them." Women would refuse sex consistently because they were “too tired” from work. They were now "in charge" of everything and men were on their way to paying the price for whatever role they may or may not have had in the repression of women. Emasculation began in full.[11]

The association between emasculation and female independence, including a woman’s entry into the workforce, reveals the belief that women need to remain home as mothers and subservient to men to maintain God’s intended gender balance. Furthermore, the connection between emasculation and women’s physical control of their bodies and sexual reproduction affirms the assumption that contraception gives women too much power, autonomy, and authority within their marriage. 

            The misogyny conveyed in much of the anti-contraceptive literature only increases when there is a distinction between the different forms of contraception. Unlike the 1960s, when condoms and coitus interruptus were usually thought to be more sinful than the Pill, the contemporary Catholic Church increasingly views use of the Pill as a far graver sin. The Pill is even portrayed as the physical and spiritual equivalent of an abortion. Due to the fact that the Pill, by its medical nature, is a feminized phenomenon, this rhetoric tends to focus on a demonization of women. The supposition that women are somehow more responsible and more sinful because of contraception is averred in a sermon which, after citing that most Catholics, both male and female, have used some form of contraception, bemoans the fact that:

The parish problem can be summed up with the realization that any one of those fertile-years women distributors [of Holy Communion] may be saying "The Body of Christ" at the same time that her Pill is destroying the life of a new human being within her uterus. I think that's obscene, but that's the way it is in the Church in America today.[12]

This priest’s statement thus equates the Pill with abortion and makes no reference to the male Eucharistic ministers who have potentially used contraception. Moreover, this priest clearly wishes to restrict women’s already very limited access to participation in the Church’s liturgy on the grounds that they could possibly be using contraception, an argument that could and has also been used in recent discussions on women’s ordination. The so-called feminist backlash occurring in the Church today, therefore, where women are increasingly portrayed as excessively sinful and selfish, being denied access to the hierarchy, and encouraged to return home as mothers is clearly linked to the issue of contraception and the gender roles portrayed and valued in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. 

---

[1]For more on the “Culture of Death,” see Charles E. Curran, The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005).

[2]Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, “Marital Love Reflects God’s Love for His People” and  “Marriage Sacrament an Effective Sign of God’s Saving Power,” July 28 1982 and December 1, 1982, Eternal Word Television Network, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM (accessed March 26, 2009).

[3]Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, November 14, 1979 quoted in an article by Christopher West, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, Catholic Education Resource Center, http://www.catholic education.org/articles/sexuality/se0055.html (accessed March 23, 2009).

[4]Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, “Church’s Position on the Transmission of Life,” August 22, 1984, Eternal Word Television Network, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM (accessed March 23, 2009).

[5]Michele Dillon, Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 74-76. Although Dillon did not necessarily coin the term “discourse on difference,” her analysis greatly shaped my understanding of it.  

[6]Aline H. Kalbian, Sexing the Church: Gender, Power, and Ethics in Contemporary Catholicism (Bloomington, IN: Indian University Press, 2005), 100.

[7]Kalbian Sexing the Church, 96.

[8]Kalbian, Sexing the Church, 106 and 97.

[9]John Paul II, Theology of the Body, “Mystery of Woman Revealed in Motherhood,” March 12, 1980, Eternal Word Television Network, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM (accessed March 28, 2009).

[10]Kalbian, Sexing the Church, 107.

[11]Cheryl Dickow, “Sex and the Married Women,” Catholic Education Resource Center, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0179.htm (accessed March 20, 2009).

[12] John F. Kippley, “Casti Connubbii: 60 Years Later, More Relevant than Ever,”Eternal Word Television Network, http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CASTI.TXT (accessed March 20, 2009).

One in Christ: A Week of Mutuality

Writer Rachel Held Evans is having a week-long series devoted to the idea of mutuality. The purpose of the series is to make a case for egalitarianism (vs. complementarianism) and show that egalitarianism is a tenable position for Christians, based on scripture, reason, tradition, etc.

The idea of gender complementarianism forms the basis of the "New Catholic Feminism" movement, and many argue that complementarianism is not only feminist, but values and honors women more than traditional feminism. Throughout my academic career, I've done quite a bit of research on gender complementarianism and New Catholic Feminism, and I firmly believe that complementarianism is no more than classic patriarchy.

Here's how Rachel describes it:

Complementarianism (also known as “soft patriarchy”): Christians who identify as complementarians believe that the Bible requires Christian women to submit to male leadership in the home, church (and, according to some*), society.

[*JI Packer, for example, wrote in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that “a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary puts a strain on the humanity of both...” Not all complementarians would agree the hierarchy between men and women extends beyond the home and church.] 

According to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, complementarianism “affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” (See also: “The Danvers Statement.”)

 

In the Christian community, complementarianism stands in contrast to the idea of mutuality/egalitarianism/feminism:

Egalitarianism (also known as “mutuality”): Christians who identify as egalitarian usually believe that Christian women enjoy equal status and responsibility with men in the home, church, and society, and that teaching and leading God’s people should be based on giftedness rather than gender. 

According to Christians for Biblical Equality, egalitarianism holds that “all believers—without regard to gender, ethnicity or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility in church, home and world.”**

[**Note: While I identify myself as egalitarian, I do not necessarily agree with every position/theological rationale of the folks at CBE. And they would probably want me to say that my views are not necessarily reflective of theirs.]

There have been many great posts in the series, which you can read by searching Twitter using #mutuality2012 or by checking out Rachel's blog.

Guest Post: What Does the Bible Say About Menstruation?

The following is a guest post from Brett Maiden, a PhD student in the Graduate Division of Religion at Emory University. He studies the Hebrew Bible and religions of the ancient Near East, and his current research explores the role of evolved cognitive architecture in shaping impurity laws and representations of divine agents.

In a hilariously provocative essay, Gloria Steinem ran an interesting thought experiment based on the hypothetical question “what would happen if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?” She surmised the following:

Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event. Men would brag about how long and how much…Generals, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve God and country in combat ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy high political office ("Can women be properly fierce without a monthly cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests, ministers, God Himself ("He gave this blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean").

Despite Ms. Steinem’s gift for raising public consciousness through satire, this scenario clearly does not reflect the reality of our situation. Far from it. Even among highly industrialized western societies, menstruation and menstrual blood are topics quickly swept under the proverbial rug. For example, a substantial majority of U.S. adults and adolescents believe that it is socially unacceptable to discuss menstruation, even within the family. When it is mentioned, it is usually spoken of in familiar euphemisms (“on the rag” and “the curse”). This silence has led to feelings of horror and confusion and has perpetuated a general ignorance about menstrual bleeding. The feminist Simon de Beauvoir, in recalling the experience of her first period, wondered what “shameful malady I was suffering from.” Overall, therefore, there exists the unfortunate view among some—of both sexes—that menstruating women are impure and repulsive. The menstrual taboo has a long historical legacy and the Bible itself is not shy about tackling the “problem” of menstruation. Given the prominent position that this collection of books is accorded in our society as well as the number of people who claim to live by its literal interpretation, it is critical to examine what the Bible actually says about menstruation.

We begin our brief survey with the most complete discussion of menstrual impurity in the Bible, found in chapter 15 of the Book of Leviticus. This book is, from an academic perspective, one of the most interesting texts in the Bible, while at the same time one of the most troubling from the perspective of modern ethical sensibilities.

According to Leviticus 15:19-33, a menstruating woman is considered impure for seven days and contaminates anything upon which she sits or lies during that time. Anyone who touches her becomes impure. Anyone who touches anything she has contaminated becomes impure and they must wash their clothes, bathe in water, and remain impure until the evening. Moreover, intercourse with a menstruating woman causes a man to be impure for seven days, and anything he touches thereafter likewise becomes impure. Menstrual blood was thus considered exceedingly potent, to say the least. Lastly, it is worth noting that when a woman gives birth she is also “impure as at the time of her menstruation” (Lev 12:12-5). If she bears a male baby, she remains impure for 33 days. If she bears a female baby, the time is double.

Leviticus 20:18 (written by a different group of priestly authors than chapters 1-16) is more explicit and less lenient, “If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has uncovered her flow and she has uncovered her own flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people.” The Hebrew word translated here as “sickness” is dawah, which also notably appears in Isaiah to denote filthy menstrual rags. Its use in Leviticus indicates that menstruation was viewed negatively as a repulsive illness. 

Similarly, the borderline psychotic prophet Ezekiel appeals to his audience’s disgust of menstrual blood in order to shift their emotional indignation to the problem of pagan idolatry: “Mortal, when the house of Israel lived on their own soil, they defiled it with their ways and their deeds; their conduct win my sight was like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual period (Ezek 36:17). The menstruant is commonly used throughout the Hebrew Bible as a metaphor for extreme pollution and utter revulsion (see Lamentations 1:17; Ezra 9:11).

The Jewish rabbis inherited this tradition of biblical regulations and engaged in extensive debates regarding the legal minutiae of menstrual impurity (niddah). The Babylonian Talmud (b. Ketubot61a) declared that a menstruant may attend to all the needs of her household…that is, with the exception of filling her husband’s cup of wine, making his bed, and washing him (charitable concessions to the woman, indeed!). However, not all the sages were quite so generous. The Mishnah includes an entire tractate devoted to issues of female impurity. In this document, menstruating women were quarantined in a special chamber known as the “House for Impure Women” (m. Nid. 7:4; b. Nid. 56b). Rabbi Akiba referred to menstruants as galmudah, “segregated,” while others held that it was forbidden to eat with them (t. Šabbat 1:14). Another text states that “if a menstruant woman passes between two men, if it is at the beginning of her menses, she will slay one of them, and it if is at the end of her menses, she will cause strife between them” (b. Pesah. 111a). Finally, the Jewish sage Nahmanides (aka Ramban) states that the breath of a menstruating woman is harmful and her gaze detrimental.

I, myself, cannot help but think that this whole discussion represents an unfortunate example of misspent human energy.  

We can also get a glimpse of what life was like for women in ancient Israel from non-biblical sources. For example, one text found among the Dead Sea Scrolls known as the Temple Scroll envisions the construction of a utopian Jewish temple accompanied by maximum standards of purity. In this idyllic world it is decreed: “And in every city you shall allot places…for women during their menstrual impurity and after giving birth, so that they may not defile in their midst with their menstrual impurity” (11Q Temple 48:14-17). The Jewish historian Josephus also testifies that menstruants were quarantined for seven days (Antiquities 3.261).

Of course, such superstitious attitudes toward menstruating women and blood were not confined to ancient Israel. In Mesopotamia, a menstruating woman is referred to by the term musukkatu, and it is said: “If a man touches a musukkatu woman who is passing by, for six days he will not be pure.” In ancient Egypt, menstruating women are included among the most severe religious prohibitions (bwt), the violation of which constituted an act of cosmic and lethal personal consequences. In Islam, the Qur’an declares: “They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say it is an illness so let women alone at such times and go not into them until they are cleansed” (2:222). (Incidentally, you need look only a few verses later to uncover this paragon of gender equity: “Women are like fields for you, so seed them as you intend”). Lastly, the Roman Pliny embodies the revulsion which we have been discussing as he writes:

Contact with the monthly flux of women turns new wine sour, makes crops wither, kills grafts, dries seeds in gardens, causes the fruit of trees to fall off, dims the bright surface of mirrors, dulls the edge of steel and the gleam of ivory, kills bees, rusts iron and bronze, and causes a horrible smell to fill the air. Dogs who taste the blood become mad, and their bite becomes poisonous as in rabies. (Natural History 7.64)

One wonders about the rigorous scientific methods by which Pliny ever collected such data.

So here we stand now in the twenty-first century, in an age of unparalleled scientific and medical advancement. And yet the menstrual taboo remains one of the most pernicious and persistent cultural phenomena to this day. My intention is that this survey of cultural and religious attitudes, while far from being comprehensive, provides a clear picture of precisely where a modern fear of menstrual blood originated. We may no longer believe that menstruating women are capable of withering crops or necessitate quarantining, but society continues to view menstruation in a generally negative light. Would it not promote a healthier society if, as writer Karen Houppert proposes, we were to regard menstruation more like sneezing or having a cold? Or better yet, why not conceptualize menstruation as something positive, powerful, and life-giving? We currently bear the cultural and psychological burden of ancient religious laws, and we should be eager to pay off this onerous debt.

Sarah Maple. Menstruate with Pride. 2012.

How the Modesty Myth Harms Women

Danielle, who blogs over at From Two to One, has a great post today about how the modesty myth harms women. She writes:

Preaching that modesty is the new sexy isn’t counter-cultural; it’s adding fuel to the fire of telling women and girls that all that matters is how sexually available and attractive they are (or aren’t).  This is false....

Similar to the purity myth, the modesty myth teaches that covering women up and teaching them to be ever on the lookout for tempting their male peers (and even non-peers such as older men, friends of one’s father’s, male relatives, pastors, and teachers) is actually promoting respect for women and their bodies while restoring healthy relationships between men and women. Another big fat false. 

Read her whole post here. And be sure to check back throughout the week as she continues to explore ideas of modesty in a Christian context.

Source: Kevin Ohlin via From Two to One

Catholic Nuns File Brief Supporting Affordable Care Act

Photo by Dev Carr

Madeleine Albright once said, "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women." And Catholic nuns must believe it, because they recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court declaring their support for the Affordable Care Act.

In their brief, which conflicts with the opposition from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the sisters cite their extensive work with the poor. They write:

The work by Amici [the group that represents women's religious orders in the U.S.] gives them a unique perspective on the unmet healthcare needs of the poor, as well as on the positive impact that will result from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. . . .

Amici have witnessed firsthand the national crisis that prompted Congress to pass the ACA. In particular, Amici have seen the devastating impact of the lack of affordable health insurance and healthcare on women, children, and other vulnerable members of society.

I can't find any explicit mention of birth control in their brief, which deals mostly with issues of Medicaid. But the message behind the brief seems clear: The Affordable Care Act helps the poor, and they're not going to let politics derail it. They also hint at the fact that they're the ones actually working with the poor, not the bishops.

Amici have filed briefs with the Supreme Court in support of the Affordable Care Act before, so this isn't really anything new. But it seems that, in light of the USCCB's recent outrage, their newest brief says, "The USCCB doesn't speak for us."

Jon Stewart: "You've Confused a War On Your Religion With Not Getting Everything You Want"

Hilarious. And so true!

Nun Admits Catholic Anger Over Birth Control Mandate Has Everything To Do With Sexual Politics

In the above video, which is meant to support the idea that the birth control mandate violates religious freedom, Sister Sharon argues that the Catholic response has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with having sex and protecting "true femininity."

Sister Sharon starts off by saying that "contraception isn't healthcare." She also claims that it is a carcinogen and linked to breast cancer. What she fails to mention is that compared to other reproductive and lifestyle factors that affect breast cancer risk, the increase in risk associated with the oral contraceptive is very small, and that oral contraceptives have been proven to reduce rates of endometrial and ovarian cancer by 50% or more.

She then goes on to say that "any drug that we as women are taking that is actually promoting sterility and suppressing our fertility is not healthcare, it is actually us as women not understanding what it means to be a woman and to be truly free... When we as women understand how God made our bodies and what it means to be truly feminine, it gives us the power to give ourselves as a gift to those we're married to. It helps me understand who I am as a woman, what it means to be a woman, what it truly means to be a maternal woman" (emphasis mine).

According to Sister Sharon, the purpose of the birth control mandate is part of a larger agenda to promote sexually irresponsible behavior. And for her, sexually irresponsible behavior means having sex without intent to procreate. She goes on to say that, "This is about having sex. It isn't about healthcare. If people want to have sex, and misuse their gift of sexuality, and want to rely on a chemical component to stop them from getting pregnant and separate sex from marriage and sex from babies, of course bad things are going to happen."

The video is worth watching because it is a good example of some of the rhetoric going on inside the Church re: the birth control mandate. It shows the roots of the outrage and the gendered theology that surrounds contraception. It is also proof that feminists have been right all along; this has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with women's sexuality.

Straight from the horse's mouth folks.

Republicans Decide People with a Uterus Should Have No Say on Issues of Birth Control and Religious Freedom

Yesterday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform assembled a panel to discuss the birth control mandate (which I've written about here, here, and here). The goal of the panel was to determine whether or not the mandate violates religious freedom.

Since I last wrote about the birth control mandate, the Obama administration has offered a compromise to help protect people who, for religious reasons, think birth control is evil. Instead of requiring religious employers to subsidize the cost of of birth control, the insurance companies providing the institution's health care plan will have to subsidize the cost. But even with this compromise, religious extremists, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are unhappy and feel that Obama has declared war on religion.

I think many feminists knew all along that the outrage over the mandate had nothing to do with religious freedom, and had everything to do with controlling women. Religious extremists, including the USCCB, think it is bad and dangerous that women have the ability to have sex without getting pregnant, to have fewer children, or to delay having children, even if they're married. And many believe that taking hormonal birth control is the equivalent of having an abortion, despite that thing called science which tells us otherwise. Jill over at Feministe writes:

So fine, compromise time: Catholic organizations, even those that are not really all that religious and instead serve the public, won’t have to pay for contraception. Instead, insurance companies will have to cover contraception. Bam, women are covered, and no one is forced to violate their strong moral opposition to birth control by covering it for their employees. Good, right? Everyone’s happy?

Nope! Because, wait, this is just about a handful of celibate men wanting to control women’s reproductive freedoms? And it’s not really about religious freedom at all? It’s just about hostility to women having the ability to prevent pregnancy? Oh. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

So despite the fact that no religious employer even has to subsidize the cost of contraception, a panel was organized to see if the fact that women have access to contraception at all interferes with religious freedom (newsflash: it doesn't).

California Republican Darrell Issa was in charge of the panel, and he rejected requests to have women on the panel saying, "the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception." Instead, he composed a panel of five men from various religious traditions. Not only did he decide that it was silly to include people who have a uterus or actually take birth control, he also decided that women don't have religious consciences. He could have included one of the 98% of Catholic women who use contraception. But apparently their religious conscience doesn't count. It is the religious conscience of the celibate men we should be worried about! Their religious freedom matters, not women's.

This video shows Representatives arguing against the panel because it only includes people who disagree with the mandate and only represents a small portion of religious institutions (for example, Catholic charities that support the mandate were not invited. Neither was Catholics for Choice). They also argue that it does not include women, who will be primarily affected if the mandate is overruled. They literally plead to allow a woman to participate. Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Martin walked out in protest. As Maya over at Feministing writes, "This is democracy in action ladies and gentlemen: Women actively barred from speaking about an issue that directly affects us, our health, and our lives." I'd also like to add that if this is actually a legal issue about separation of church and state, where are the legal scholars? None of the people on this panel have any great legal knowledge.



If this isn't enough, in Issa's opening statement he said that "a man's conscience" should guide laws in America (emphasis mine). Then Bishop William Lori compared insurance companies subsidizing the cost of contraception to Jewish delis being forced to serve pork. Does he know that not eating pork isn't exactly a public health issue, or that not having access to pork doesn't mean you'll wind up pregnant? Does he know that Jewish delis, or Jewish hospitals/schools for that matter, don't run around actively trying to bar other Jews, and especially non-Jews, from eating pork. They're not upset that some of their hard-earned tax money might end up supporting pig farmers or the meat industry, thus violating their conscience. In addition to being a ridiculous analogy (although not as ridiculous as an analogy I heard from another Catholic man, who said the birth control mandate is the same as telling Catholic doctors that they have to shoot their patients), comparing bacon to birth control and women's health is incredibly demeaning and insulting. Erin Gloria Ryan, from Jezebel, writes, "The comparison of birth control to cooked pig parts was effective in one way, though— it showed that the Church utterly devalues women, and views their health care as a recreational afterthought. Want to have some honey glazed ham? Wanna keep from getting pregnant? Same thing!"

The fact that access to birth control is compared to access to bacon is infuriating. The fact that no one on the panel was a woman, supported the mandate, or had a background in law or medicine is infuriating. But the most infuriating thing is that in 2012, we're actually having congressional hearings about access to birth control.

Picture from the Congressional Hearing. Where are the women?

Occupy the Church: The 98 percent

I've written two posts on why I think the HHS mandate is a huge victory for women's rights, why I believe it in no way violates religious freedom, and why providing a broad religious exemption is caving to extremism.

Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, published an op-ed in USA Today, affirming that the mandate is necessary and that it respects religion. In the piece, which was obviously a response to outcry from certain religious groups, she talks about how the mandate has no effect on the conscience clause protections for medical providers and that the mandate does not cover abortifacients, as some religious groups have falsely been claiming. She also brings attention to the fact that 28 states, including California and New York, already require contraception to be covered by insurance. Eight of these states have no religious exemption whatsoever. The religious exemption adopted by the federal government, one that provides exemptions for places of worship and religiously-affiliated organizations that can prove that the majority of their employees are of the same faith, is the same as the policy already in place in California, Oregon, and New York. I was actually quite surprised to learn this, given that the Archbishop of New York has been incredibly vocal about the fact that he opposes the federal legislation. But if what Sebelius says is true (and I'm going to assume it is) then nothing will even change for Catholic institutions in the state of NY. So why is he so upset and why does he feel like the federal legislation is an additional assault on his religious liberty? And why does he feel like his religious beliefs should trump the rights of the women who are the life blood of the Catholic schools, hospitals, and even churches in New York?

 I'm reminded of a conversation I had recently with a friend, B, who is Catholic, has an M.A. in Theology, and teaches theology at a very conservative Catholic school. Her insurance provides coverage of contraception, even though she works for an uber-Catholic school. She is appalled by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' outrage over the mandate and angry that they are monopolizing the conversation on how Catholics feel about coverage of contraception. In addition to the fact that most women will use contraception, she pointed out that there are already very many Catholic institutions that do provide coverage of contraception. These institutions obviously do so without feeling that they are somehow terrible Catholics or violating any religious dogma, but even they are silenced by the USCCB.

I think B raises an important issue about questioning who the USCCB speaks for and even who we think of when we think of the Catholic Church. She's also left me thinking quite a bit about how women and men within the Catholic Church who do not follow the USCCB's extremist and minority opinion can make their voices heard. How do these women, the 98 percent if you will, make it clear that they are the majority? Is there a way to change that power dynamic if they stay within the Church?

I feel like I'm inundated with anti-choice, or "pro-life," ideology day in and day out. And it is exhausting because it is an attack on ME and my rights. It's not just political, it is personal. But over the past week, watching the whole Komen/Planned Parenthood saga unfold, I've been inspired by how many women and men stood up for reproductive rights. They made their voices heard and the consequences are enormous, not only in that they forced Komen to re-fund Planned Parenthood and provide life-saving cancer screenings, but by showing that the majority of Americans believe in women's rights and reproductive rights; that they care about women's health. Most women use contraception and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 77% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. Can we keep the momentum from the Komen situation going and change the conversation on reproductive rights once and for all? Can Catholic women change the conversation about what the Church believes? If they expressed their outrage over restricting access to contraception, could they make the USCCB back down, shut up, or even change their position, as Komen did? Can the 98 percent Occupy the Catholic Church?

Religious Groups Upset That They Have to Protect Women's Rights and Follow the Law

I've already written a long post on why the outcry from some religious groups over the administration's decision to require all institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception is ridiculous.So I'm not going to go into another rant. But the New York Times published an article today on the controversy the mandate is causing among Catholic universities, in particular, and I wanted to highlight one section I found particularly terrifying.

"Mr. Santorum has taken the position that health insurance plans should not be required to cover birth control. He also favors allowing states to decide whether to ban birth control. He and Mr. Gingrich both support “personhood” initiatives that would legally declare fertilized eggs to be persons, effectively banning not just all abortions but also certain contraceptives, including IUDs and some types of birth control pills."

I know I've said this before, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this is why it is so important that we protect access to contraception. Because the religious groups that are upset over having to provide coverage for contraception think of contraception as "poison," and "baby killers" and "murder." They literally think it is "demonic" and that Obama is Satan (I can't find links to these now, but I promise these make up the majority of comments on Catholic blogs). And they don't want anyone in the U.S. to have access to it. They want contraception to be illegal.

This is religious extremism at its worst.

This is not a murder weapon.

 P.S. Do you support the Obama administration's decision to protect women's rights? Send him a thank you note.

Women's Health and Religous Freedom

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared that health insurance plans must cover preventative services for women, including birth control. The goal is that all women, regardless of their faith or where they work or go to school, should have access to birth control if they so choose to use it- without having their access restricted by expensive co-pays or an insurance plan that does not cover contraception.

The move was strongly opposed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who wanted the law to allow for a religious exemption. Obama took their concerns seriously (too seriously, in my opinion), and a meeting with the U.S.C.C.B. sparked outrage and protest from many concerned about religious encroachment on women's health.

But yesterday we learned that Obama didn't pander to religious groups, who want to hide behind religion and religious exemptions to strip women of their rights and endanger their health. Or at least, he didn't totally pander to them. The ruling still includes a religious exemption that allows religious institutions, like churches, and small religious-based nonprofits that can prove that the majority of their employees are people of the same faith, to not provide insurance that covers contraception.

Unfortunately, some people of faith are absolutely outraged by the decision, calling it a "disaster" and saying that Obama is marginalizing people of faith and pandering to the far-left's sexual politics. Even the pope is involved, issuing an address to the bishops of the United States in which he says:

It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres... Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level. In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights.

There are also lots of comments with a liberals-are-so-quick-to-cry-out-separation-of-church-and-state-so-shouldn't-that-also-apply-to-this-outrage! theme.

Honestly, I think the outrage is ridiculous and demonstrates that many people don't understand exactly what separation of church and state means.

Obama isn't pandering to the far-left's sexual politics, because it isn't just the far-left who think that birth control should be accessible. And it isn't just crazy liberal women who use it. As the statement by the Dept of HHS itself says, "Birth control is the most commonly taken drug by young and middle-aged women." And as we know, 97% of Catholic women will use birth control at some point in their lives. This isn't pandering to some far-left sexual ideology, this is ensuring that women have access to a drug that they clearly want and use, one that is crucial to their health and quality of life.

Secondly, the law isn't forcing anyone to do anything that their faith prohibits. It isn't saying that people MUST use contraception. It simply says that if they want it, they need to have access to it. If you are a Catholic woman who strongly opposes contraception at a place where it is now covered by insurance, simply do not ask for a prescription for contraception. The ruling isn't encroaching on your religious freedom to do so.

One of the big concerns over a religious exemption was Catholic universities, where many non-Catholic students attend and many students - both Catholic and non-Catholic alike - are having sex and should be able to do so safely. From what I can tell, universities are one of the few places that will really be affected by the ruling, since churches and many religious non-profits are exempt. I'm sure many people would say something along the lines of, "If you're not Catholic, don't go to a Catholic school!" which is fine and dandy for them to say. However, it doesn't change the fact that by depriving non-Catholics, or Catholics who disagree with the idea that contraception is wrong, access to contraception, they are depriving those people of their rights and their religious freedom. Religious freedom means that you have a right to make a moral decision about your actions and behavior based on your religious beliefs. It does not mean that you have a right to make it impossible for other people to do something that contradicts your religious beliefs.

I suppose a final argument could be made that religious persons are now having to spend their tax money on something that they disagree with. And honestly, I sympathize. I do. Because I have had to pay taxes that largely fund wars I disagree with, prison systems I think are inhumane, a justice system that uses the death penalty, and programs I think are inefficient and ridiculous (hello, abstinence only sex-ed!). But the bottom line is that despite my objections, I had to pay them. Because while I can vote and advocate to change the system, I can't opt out of the system. Catholics, in in particular, should be well aware of the fact that that is how it works, because the last time I checked the Church also disagreed with the recent wars, our inhumane prison system, and the death penalty. Where is your outrage over your tax money being used for these things? Why do I only hear the "tax money" argument brought up around reproductive rights?

I think one of the reasons this ruling has been so difficult for certain religious groups is that it highlights an increasingly divergent understanding of religious freedom. To many religious groups, religious freedom means that no one in the U.S. should have a right to do something they find morally wrong; no one should have access to abortion, no gay couple should be allowed to get married, no one should be able to conduct stem cell research. Yet, as stated previously, that means they are depriving others of their right to religious freedom, to make decisions based on their own construction of morality.

That isn't religious freedom, that is religious tyranny.

The Christmas Story is a Pro-Choice Story

I've been busy eating up a storm in Miami with my family, but I wanted to link to this Christmas reflection even if it is a little late. In this reflection, the Rev. Dr. Maria LaSala writes about how the Annunciation story found in the New Testament is really a piece of pro-choice Scripture. As someone who has frequently heard Christian anti-choice advocates use the Annunciation story to promote an anti-choice message, proclaiming the tired old, "What if Mary had had an abortion?!?!" I find LaSala's reflection much more theologically accurate and refreshing. If God had faith in a woman's moral agency, why can't Christians demonstrate that same faith today and give women the right to make reproductive decisions?

My favorite painting of the Annunciation - by Henry Ossawa Tanner

Rest in Peace Christopher Hitchens!

Christopher Hitchens, 62, died last night from esophageal cancer. 

 The outspoken atheist was, in my opinion, one of the world's most talented writers and public intellectuals. I respect him for the way he fearlessly voiced his opinions, and the way he seemed to write in order to genuinely work through his own moral philosophy; a philosophy that admittedly changed over time. I do not agree with every argument Hitchens has put forth. His position on Islam and the way he spoke about women who wear the veil, in particular, made me uncomfortable at times. But even though I disagreed with him at times, and think he might have just gotten certain things wrong, I will miss his intellect, his writing, and the comically ruthless way he tore apart the arguments of his opponents in debates. Moreover, despite claims that he was a misogynist, I've heard him speak quite eloquently on the myriad ways religion harms women (including the below quote) and the way the cult of Mother Theresa fosters a belief that women don't have rights. He was not a traditional feminist, by any means, but I think his writing frequently promoted a feminist political project.

 Rest in peace Mr. Hitchens. You will be missed! 

"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way, or in the case of—now, furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, say, which I would hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I'd be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say."  --Christopher Hitchens

Are You Going to Lose Access to Birth Control?

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is campaigning against no cost birth control. And Obama might actually give in to their demands. If the administration doesn't, nearly one million people who work at Catholic hospitals and approximately two million people who attend or work at Catholic-affiliated colleges will lose contraceptive coverage they already have.

Why does this matter to you if you don't work or attend school at a Catholic institution? Well, I for one am very, very uncomfortable with seeing a President cave to the extremist demands of a bunch of old men instead of standing with women and supporting basic human rights (remember this recently released UN report?). Furthermore, religious extremists, including the USCCB, have made it clear that the war against women doesn't just mean restricting access to abortion, but restricting access to things like birth control as well. I know lots of "good Catholic women" who are anti-abortion but use birth control and/or support access to birth control (97% of Catholic women will use birth control at some point in their lives). Well guess what?! If you think that religious extremists are going to stop at restricting access to abortion and leave you and your birth control alone, you are wrong.

That is because, as I've long suspected, the anti-abortion argument isn't solely about the "right to life" or the rights of fetuses. It is also about women having children - lots of them. If these people really cared about reducing the number of abortions, they would make sure that birth control was readily available. But they don't! Because they view women as baby making machines and think it is a travesty when they care about other things, such as their career or their own health. Religious groups that fight to end access to abortion also have a gender ideology that says women are inherently different than men and belong in the home raising children. That gender ideology isn't distinct from the anti-abortion fight, it is intrinsically related to it.

All women and men should recognize that the "pro-life" movement isn't really pro-life, it is anti-woman and extremist. And the USCCB's attempt to eliminate access to birth control proves it.

Take action! Tweet @Whitehouse and @BarackObama to resist the USCCB's demands. Use the hashtag #bcrefusal. You can also sign NARAL Pro-Choice America's petition.

Don't worry! She's not a feminist or anything!

I randomly came across this article today (don't ask).

The author bemoans the fact that there are so many single Christian women who want to get married:

Go to almost any church and you’ll meet mature, intelligent, attractive Christian women who want to get married and virtually no men to pursue them. These women are often in graduate programs and may have started a career already. But they aren’t feminists. They are eager to embrace the roles of wife and mother. Most of the women I’ve met don’t object to the being a helpmate. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of mates to go around (emphasis mine).

Ugh! He is seriously using "they aren't feminists" as a way to clarify that there isn't something "wrong" with these women.

I hate it, because it essentially says, "Don't worry, she has no self-worth, she doesn't actually think she is your equal."

In fact, that is precisely what they mean. If you understand the author's theology, you know that women aren't supposed to think they're men's equals. Thinking such a thing means there is something wrong with them, that they're not good wife material.

And any such ideology that so blatantly proclaims women's inferiority is, my friends, fucked up.*

*pardon my language, this type of theology really gets me mad!
*Sometime soon, I will write a much more articulate post on why this kind of theology is harmful to women.