For my freshman writing class, I am writing a research paper on the motivations of those who participated antifeminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s. That movement, which classified feminism as an extremist, anti-family, anti-female ideology and thus staunchly opposed the feminist movement’s goals, was remarkable for a few reasons. First, the antifeminist movement was not only associated with a woman as its leader—Phyllis Schlafly—but also composed almost entirely of women. Second, most of the women who crusaded against the feminists of their time did so due to their conservative religious faiths (they were most often evangelicals). And finally, the antifeminist movement, which was written off by feminists and liberals of the day as backwards, extremist, and non threatening, rose to be a force of such power that Phyllis Schlafly and her followers claim all the credit for defeating the ERA.
As interesting as this topic is from a historical perspective (at least to me) it may seem like old news in this day and age. However, many of the issues that the antifeminism of the 1970s and 1980s illuminates are still relevant today—especially the potentially paradoxical role of an evangelical female in political leadership. In her October, 2008 LA Times article, “To Some Evangelicals, Palin’s Career Violates Biblical Teaching,” Teresa Watanabe highlights a tension that, for some evangelicals, exists between Palin’s evangelical faith and her willingness to leave her home—filled with children and a husband—in favor of being a political leader. Such a tension is the result of Biblical teachings that seem to not only limit a woman’s leadership in the church and in the home, but, according to Watanabe, also encourage younger women to stay in the homes and submit to their husbands.
But there isn’t necessarily a solid evangelical consensus about Palin’s politics. One evangelical leader in Texas called Palin’s candidacy “‘the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least…[a] fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities’”(par.11). Yet other the evangelicals who supported Palin on the McCain ticket reconcile her political career with her devotion to her family, the okay she received from her husband, and the notion that politics constitutes a realm in which women are free to pursue leadership roles. This debate over how Biblically obedient it is a for a woman to pursue a political career—and thus “abandon” her role in the home—existed forty years ago, as well. In fact, I hope to highlight the questions that arise when considering thousands of women diving into the political process—all in defense of relegating the female to the home. Still, as I plan to explain through my research, much of the tension involved in being a politically active, antifeminist female was resolved by the pro-family, religious ideology of the movement. Women in the 1970s such as Phyllis Schlafly felt free—even obligated—to pursue political goals if they would protect the sanctity of the Biblically ordained home and gender order. Thus, when Schlafly ran for congress, her own husband remarked that women belonged “in the House…the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Yet if rumors about Palin’s political ambitions hold true, then in four years, she won’t just be seeking a spot in Congress. If Palin seeks out the presidential nomination in 2012, her political career could carry the evangelical debate over how much authority and leadership women should hold in the church to new, more secular spheres. Without a specific antifeminist goal or an explicitly religious platform, Palin may not be justified in her political career as Phyllis Schlafly seemed to have been. Would Palin as a presidential candidate severely divide evangelicals? Could the conservative Christians of this nation place one of their own women in the White House? In four years, we just might get the answer to that question.
House Republicans Release Report on Antisemitism
22 hours ago
Posts
3 comments:
Rachel recalls an interesting point about the controversy over Palin’s candidacy. Rachel points out that running for the Vice Presidency was detested by some evangelicals who felt that the Bible only specifies the women’s sphere to be in the home. But, I must ask by evangelical standards, was Palin even doing her job there, especially with her daughter’s premature, teenage pregnancy? It seems like to me on way a Phyllis Schlafly or Palin may reconcile their evangelical beliefs with their political leadership is to say that some one must protect the woman’s place in the home, while others are better suited to actually be in the home.
I think to fairly adress the broader issue of what you are going for (evangelical roles and opinions of women) would require years of research and would not yield a clear consenus. I must say though, and this has been a major headache for me reading this blog throughout the semester, is most individuals inability to distinguish between "evangelicals" and "fundamentalists", which are (in theory at least) two very different theologies, especially in their views of orthopraxy (I believe we discussed this last semester in religion in America, correct prof. Gasaway?). It must be noted that though some people would probably describe themselves as both evangelical and fundamentalist(showing how confusing keeping sects straight can be), and I have no personal agenda here, since I am neither. However, wheras fundamentalism is generally considered anti-intellectual and anti-progressive (perhaps inaccurately), the evangelical movement tries to embrace the intellect and to be progressive, and in general cannot be as easily pigenholed as fundamentalism, which is generally marked by its reaction to liberalism in the form of adherence to the five points of "the fundamentals" (hence the name). Evangelicalism may be seen as a reaction to the negative perceptions of fundamentalism. Because evangelicalism is so much broader, more recent and harder to define (in lived reality, at least rather than basic theology) than fundamentalism (hence my anger at the confusion of the two terms) it becomes very hard to say what most evangelicals think, especially as they branch out and form more and more sects. While it is an interesting question as to what "evangelicals think about..." it is kind of like asking "what to college students think about...". The definition and membership of both is so broad as to be almost impossible to achieve much consensus, though general trends may appear. I also believe part of the problem is that several prominent individuals are often seen to "speak for" evangelicals (this is common for many groups)even though there are so many different variations of evangelicalism.
The problem I have with the more strict Bible readers if the belief that women should submit to men. At the university I attend, I was told by a member of a religious group that women "are not to be in positions of power." This extreme belief by some, especially women, is a clear oppression of women. What surprises me the most is that women are actually oppressing themselves, whether they believe they are doing so, or not.
So, should Palin do the political things she does? Yes! It is rather ridiculous for some religious zealots to proclaim that it is wrong for Palin and other female politicians to be in power, when they claim to be judgement-free individuals. How do they know what God would want? The Bible? Well, if someone lets a book define their lives, so be it. I would rather live my life as a sinner supporting a female candidate, than oppressing people in my life.
Post a Comment