The Lives of Women

I have been thinking—can’t help it—the lives of women. The “lived experience” of us, 51% of the population. It’s not pretty, as much as I enjoy my life as a woman (most of the time).

I am not a feminist per se (not sure what that means any more). I am pro-life*. I am pro-women, and I want them heard. Some things that have gotten me thinking.

The election, of course. We are told that women, well, married women, broke for President Trump, while single women went overwhelming for VP Harris. Okay, I’ll take that as it is. The media wants to portray Trump as anti-women. He isn’t ideological enough to be so. He respects women if they can get him what he wants; case in point, nominating Susie (Summerall) Wiles for Chief of Staff, and Kelly Anne Conway. (Notice that Susie Wiles is Pat Summerall's daughter and Kelly Anne is married to a high-level lawyer). The assumption, again of the media, which blasts at us 24/7, was that because Kamala Harris is female, we will fall at her feet, mindlessly, not bothering to look at her policies, experience, and inability to communicate (oh, that voice! We’ve been delivered from it). Some did, some didn’t. Maybe the media will finally believe the American people don’t follow their patterns.

Then, a book I read election night, Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life. I had bought the Kindle version because it was (over and over) recommended by some podcasts I listen to, but probably because the podcasters were paid to do so. Not that the book is bad; I think it’s pretty interesting, but because the podcasters do not share the writer’s world view. The writer attended, and I assume is a member, of Redeemer Presbyterian in New York, and he quotes from and speaks highly on Tim Keller. The argument of the book is that work is good for its own sake, specifically because we are designed to produce, to work, to create, to add to the world, to make value and, well, wealth. I’m all in on that. He argues against the views that work is just something to get through to retire; that we work too hard; that career focus is bad and necessarily causes one to neglect family; even that work is only good because it allows you to make money to give to charities (this one is pernicious). He takes a creation-is-good theology approach, an anti-dualistic, anti-pietistic, and anti-Gnostic view.

So I generally agreed. But the book is entirely de-gendered. In only one place does he use a woman in the work force as an example, and that is of a woman whom he interviewed for a job and was ready to hire until she asked about “work-life” balance. I agree with him that that phrase is really meaningless. He didn’t hire her. But other than that, women are silent, absent, and invisible in this book.

He totally overlooks the fact that women exist in the work force, contribute plenty to it (I would argue more in some cases), but have different experiences, needs, and goals in the work force and their careers. I would assume that he would want women to leave to raise the children. Fine. But then, what about their work, unpaid, necessary, mundane, non-resume-building, but the core of society?

In retrospect, it made me angry.

Then, I watched the last episode of Disclaimer last night. Not a satisfying ending, very dark, but logical in its own way. It suffers from this basic plot flaw that seems common nowadays: the story would stop existing if someone would just tell the truth. If Catherine had told her husband the truth, all that would have been avoided. Yes, there would have been other issues, but she could have gotten help. She could have told the father if not the mother. (I won’t give it away). The parents’ failure to know their children is frustrating and heartbreaking. And it’s not clear why Jonathan saved the little boy after everything else.

The artistic storytelling and acting are excellent. Cate Blanchett’s trying to wake herself up and get to the hospital show how committed she is to a part. Kevin Kline is always good, and here he is evil, although his turnaround at the hospital isn’t clear to me. Borat, well, miscast. Just don’t like him in anything.

However, the story hinges on Catherine’s line to her husband in the end, which I won’t give away due to spoilers. Men don’t, or find it incredibly hard to, believe women’s stories or take them seriously or see their perspectives.

Fourth point: A short conversation with my husband about preachers who get in trouble with adultery. This example was Steve Lawson, whom I don’t know. My husband felt that the situation is being dealt with as more about Lawson being restored and cared for than dealing with the trauma done to the church. He brought up the abuse allegations at Grace Church (John MacArthur) regarding a staff member. Again, I don’t know the details; I don’t believe I have the bandwidth for such. We have seen it in the convention, and at Southeastern Theological Seminary and Paige Patterson.

Women can’t be believed (unless there is overwhelming evidence), women are out to seduce and use men, women are emotional and flakey and unstable. The leadership has to be protected; women want to destroy the leadership of the church with lies and sexuality because they …… because, well why?

And women want to lord it over men, they want to be in ministry so they can disprove Paul’s admonitions, they want control and power.

Finally, today I read I Timothy 1 and 2, where we find the controversial section on women not teaching or having authority over men (presumably in the church). I myself am uncomfortable teaching men, but not for reasons one would think. I do not feel less capable; instead, I teach to women as a woman, not to men as men, not to their lived experience. Perhaps I should change that, at least in my books; I think it’s less obvious in my writing than oral communication. Women’s spaces are being encroached upon by men anyway (men who think they should be accepted as women because they have gender dysphoria and take some shots). I do not wish to encroach on men’s spaces, unless they invite me to.

I think my experience may be common for women who teach Scripture. However, my gifts may not be another woman’s, so I will leave that to God. On the other hand, I’d like to present a different view. Here is the passage.

8 I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and doubting. 9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety, not just[a] with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing, 10 but with good works, which is appropriate for women professing godliness. 11 Let a woman learn in quietness with full submission. 12 But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; 15 but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

Paul starts this with “I desire.” Does this mean it is from God, or from his personal conviction or interpretation? Everything makes sense until verse 12, since elsewhere he does tell them to teach other women and he clearly had friends whose wives did so.

And his argument—from Adam and Eve—is this in any way relevant, and how are women saved through childbearing?

Definitely problematic; how can men be saved through faith but women through having babies? Especially when barrenness is so common, even in the Scriptural narrative? Is “she” referring to “all women,” who will be saved through producing the Messiah? Or she will be saved in the act of childbearing? And what does continuing in faith, love and sobriety have to do with it? And since when was Adam not guilty and disobedient?

This is one of those passages that get explained away rather than explained.

So, in the end, I am frustrated that women are still overlooked and not heard. Maybe it’s just that I am overlooked and not heard. Pro-life women are not heard—”of course all women want abortion all nine months!” Women who are not married to or the daughter of powerful men are far less likely to be heard. (I’m talking to you, Hillary Clinton.) Poor women are not listened to. Plain women are not likely to be heard, unless they have earned accolades for their work.

Of course, there are a lot of men who could say the same. Perhaps the issue is not that we are unheard but that we do not speak.