I agree with you that we need to acknowledge and challenge sexism both against men and women, and that we need a theology which promotes both God(s) and Goddess(es), or to put it more broadly, positive images of the divine as both male and female.

It’s important to have a theological understanding of how we should approach gender that takes into account multiple perspectives.

And then to build on that understanding by working it out in practice, figuring out what it looks like in worship services, religious education classes, and other programs of the congregation. I wonder if you and I were planning a worship service or another program together, how much more we would learn about one another’s beliefs, and where we differ and agree.

This has been a great discussion. Thank you. This is the kind of conversation between men and women about gender that I’d like to see happen more in congregations (and that I like to participate in).

If that can’t be done — if the “Great Goddess” is regularly invoked but “God the Father” is forbidden, if “patriarchy” is deplored even when it is absent from the gathered community, but “matriarchy” is condoned and practiced within the gathered community, then men will choose to worship elsewhere, and we will become a community of women worshiping by themselves.

Thank you for clarifying this. You’re right, we do have different concerns, because we have had different experiences: Although I think UU’s and UU institutions are doing a lot of things right on gender issues, I have still seen significant instances of sexism against women, and my concern is with how we can counter those. What you have seen is that men are stereotyped as oppressors and that masculinity is treated as uniformly negative.

We differ, in that I can’t agree with the idea that we should simply cease all discussion of the power imbalance between men and women in our society (i.e. patriarchy, whether by that or another name). Nor can I support using a vocabulary that has been traditionally been harmful to women, without discussing or re-framing our use of those words.

But I also believe it is possible for congregations to have an approach that meets the needs of both men and women. I would like to see us take a middle way, in which we acknowledge and challenge sexism against women, while also elevating positive images of both genders, in worship and in other congregational settings.

I think most men experience the word “patriarchy” as it is used by feminists as a derogatory slur, whether it is intended that way or not. Using it too frequently or carelessly creates an inherently hostile rather than welcoming environment for men. And telling a UU man that there once were some rare, exemplary UU men who in mythic times rebelled against their base masculine essence to conquer their inherent patriarchy, and who still provide an ideal for us contemporary male mortals to aspire to, is a lot like saying, “He was a credit to his race, and you can hope to be, too, if you work hard enough at it.”

Most men would probably rather just go watch football with the guys than let themselves be ambushed into that paradigm. I am saying that if we really want to attract men, we need to celebrate healthy male archetypes, not simply deplore unhealthy ones. And rather than quashing time-honored worship vocabularies because they are “patriarchal” when viewed through a particular lens, quash instead any language that makes men feel that they are deemed guilty on arrival.

To use a classical pagan vocabulary, if we allow ourselves to worship only Athena, Artemis, Hestia, Aphrodite, Hebe, and Hera — especially Hera! — while sneering at Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, Ares, Hephaestus, and Dionysus, we will soon become a female-only cult.

Fausto, Thank you for responding again. Your use of the term AO (anti-oppression) reminded me of a divinity school course I took on white anti-racist identity. One lesson I took from that course is that the dominant models we have of whiteness in our culture are models that either deny social inequalities, or models that promote social inequalities. There are few models of white people who are aware of racial prejudice AND taking action to change it. Such white people do exist, but they are rarely discussed.

Perhaps the same thing is happening in some of our congregations–either we downplay the sexism against women that still persists, or we pigeonhole all men as agents of sexism. To be frank, what I have seen falls in the former category, but I can accept that your experience with congregations has been more in the latter. What is needed is an open discussion of how sexism does still operate, and what strategies men and women can take to challenge sexism. This could also include holding up examples of UU men who have been anti-sexist—for example, male ministers who helped women seeking abortions before Roe v. Wade. (I’ll write more about this history for one of my upcoming posts–it’s an interesting part of our UU heritage that is rarely discussed.)

Although all ministers and most members in my congregations would insist on their anti-sexist credentials, a disturbing phenomena suggests much unconscious sexism. Men or women, very few sermon-izers use readings and quotes are by women. Of those the same few women appear over and over (Mary Olvier being #1).

Where are the women’s voices? http://www.lookingforfaith.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif

Modern or ancient, Christian, Buddhist, Sufi or Hindu… there are so many amazing women’s voices out there. And with the web, they are easy to find. We all need to take responsibility, also for bringing women into our churches in this way.

For anyone who wants a one-book education in spiritual women’s poetry thru history, a great start is Jane Hirshfield’s compliation: Women in Praise of the Sacred
Women in Praise of the Sacred

Elena @ Wandering Monk, Reluctant Gyrovague

I would also add to your comments that a touch of introspective “AO work” on the topic of gender should be on the agenda as well. The pathological male archetype that many self-identified “feminists” freely condemn in UU culture and worship is not typically the type of man who is drawn to UU churches on Sunday, nor do the men who do show up appreciate overtly or implicitly bigoted generalizations about all men, yet a negative archetype of all masculinity too frequently predominates and is too infrequently challenged.

In her day Mary Daly shone much-needed sunlight on harmful, systematic, unrecognized, “patriarchal” gender biases in our culture, including in church; but that was then, this is now, we are not they, and a community that sincerely desires to be an place of equal welcome to both genders today is no place to preach the gospel of Mary Daly. Rather than sponsoring opportunities for men to do their manly thing separately, while the community of the whole continues to condone the perpetuation of derogatory masculine archetypes in order to justify an a priori sense of feminine resentment toward them, UUism needs to do more as an entire community — of both sexes together and at all age levels — to uphold and value positive masculine archetypes if it is going to stem its long-term trend toward institutional feminization. Otherwise even more men will come to conclude — as too many already do — that “there’s nothing for me here”.

You’re quite welcome. I’m glad you mentioned Christine’s recent article about women in ministry–I’m going to add that to the main post.

Thank you for sharing this.

First, I have to agree that there is something fundamentally unfair about elevating Mother’s Day to epic status in worship, while downplaying Father’s Day. Not only does that negate the crucial role that fathers can play in their children’s lives, but it also implies that somehow parenthood is more important for women than for men.

Second, the God-talk issue is thorny. Describing God as male sometimes and female other times doesn’t rectify the problem. For most women and men, masculine God-talk will simply reinforce negative theologies about gender, even if it is only used some of the time. Instead, we need theologies about God and gender that challenge patriarchal views of masculinity and feminity.

We need to discuss: If and when we think of God as male, what do we learn about God? What does it mean to us to picture a male God? What about when we think of God as female? What do we learn about God then? This gives us a chance to share with one another a different way of conceptualizing a male and female God.

For me, I would say when I think of God as male, I am reminded of the men in my life who have supported me, encouraged me to accomplishment, and affirmed my value. These are men who refused to be bound by patriarchal ideas of masculinity. Likewise, when I think of God as a woman, I picture those women who have guided me, shared wisdom with me, and encouraged me to growth. These are women who were feminist and proud, and take the time to help other women along the way.

Picturing God as both male and female helps me to see God’s love as it has been expressed by men and women I have known.

Different people will come to different conclusions about how they want to God-talk, based on their own experiences of gender.

The important thing is that congregations openly discuss these issues, including the experiences of both men and women. A few things I have seen in congregations come to mind. One is men’s groups, led for and by men, as places to explore spirituality and men’s experiences. Another is creative use of gender language. The hymn “Bring Many Names,” with its description of the “Strong mother God, working day and night, Planning all wonders of creation…” and the “Warm father God, hugging every child, feeling all the strains of human living…” shows one way that gendered language can be used without reinforcing sexism. I would also like to see more discussion groups that include both men and women, and focus on gender issues.

What do you think of these suggestions? Would they begin to address some of the concerns you have based on your experience with UU congregations?