This topic contains 7 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
Danielle 4 months, 3 weeks ago.
-
Posts
-
I really need to vent – concerning David’s post about John Piper and women who teach, over at NP. I don’t want to post a public comment over there, but that really hit an old nerve that hasn’t been tweaked in quite a while, in quite that way. Warning – long rant follows…
The attitude that there is something out of sorts with a man learning or taking direction from a woman is so mind-bendingly annoying that it’s difficult to even begin to describe it. That attitude not only exists in the church, propped up by conveniently quoted proof texts, but still exists in the secular realm as well (although it’s much less common than it used to be). Heaven help the poor dears if someone who sports lady-bits has knowledge, ability, or authority which they don’t possess for themselves. It’s absolutely ridiculous and makes guys who are stuck in that rut look like boys with tender egos who are desperately trying to posture themselves as men.
The source of that attitude is the same, whether it’s behind a pulpit, in a pew, at a desk, or on a production floor. And it’s really very sad, because the men who are so consumed by status and standing and fear (yes, fear) that they can’t get past the configuration of a person’s reproductive tract are only shortchanging themselves. It does a real disservice to everyone – but heaven help us if a patriarchal preacher from a patriarchal age addressed a patriarchal problem in a patriarchal manner – it must be the word of THE LORD. Nevermind that there are plenty of other passages which can be used to countermand those supposed words of God. Isn’t this how it goes – Peter, Paul (and never Mary) said it, I believe, that settles it? (Leaving aside the whole issue of who really wrote what to whom, and when, and just how much has been added, subtracted, or lost in translation.)
I happen to be a woman who has managed and taught both men and women. No, not in the church, but in the workplace as a manager and trainer and in the hangar as a ground school tutor. I won’t even begin to touch on the crap heaped on smart, capable, talented, knowledgable, strong women by the churches I used to attend – that adventure is a book by itself. I’ve been very fortunate in having had some amazing men in my life who’ve believe in and encouraged me – anyone who conflates “man bashing” with my annoyance at those who limit themselves and others based on gender expectations is grossly mistaken. Outside the abode of theologically induced patriarchy, my encounters with blatant sexism have been rare enough that I can remember each instance. And when I read this post, several of those flooded back to mind, the adrenaline kicked in, and my blood pressure started to climb.
When someone – male or female – sports the belief that what is or is not permissible for individuals is based on gender, it is not confined to the realm of the church. There may be some who’ll protest that they’re being maligned by this statement, but think about it: Suppose someone held the same belief concerning race or ethnicity. What if they said it was very well and good for a person of African or Asian or whatever-is-different-than-me descent to manage a business, drive a truck, teach a math class, or practice medicine – but within the church people with that particular genetic configuration are not permitted to teach people with our kind of genetic configuration. It’s OK for them to share, or teach a Sunday school class of children, or even other adults like “them” but somewhere in the book we call holy it says they are not fit, capable, or permitted to teach “us”. What would you call that? Does anyone honestly think that holding such a doctrine and practice as part of the values that go to the core of a person’s being – one’s religious faith, which is wrapped up in the essence of life and meaning – is something that can just be severed from the rest of one’s life? It may not be overt, it may never be acknowledged, but it distorts the lens through which that person views “the other”. As long as there is a perceived God-mandated separation of individuals into “able” and “not able” which is based, not on individual competence but on a group stereotype, it will – perhaps subtly and stealthily, but relentlessly – poison one’s interactions with those “others”.
I remember, as a child, reading certain passages in the Bible and learning about some of the limits that existed “way back then”. I recall thinking that I was so lucky and wondering how many girls were unlucky – I was sure that, even thousands of years ago, when girls weren’t even allowed to go to school, my Dad would have been one to buck the tradition and teach me to read, write, and ask questions. After all, it was Dad who’d taught me those things, and who not only didn’t mind my questions, but insisted I be permitted to sit in on his discussions of philosophy, theology, politics, and the religion of Cardinals baseball. (Ho-ly cow!)
I remember something my art mentor said, years later, when I was twenty-something. He went into great detail, telling me about how he’d built his studio, and someone asked why he was telling me all that stuff since I’d never use it. His reply was that I’d want to build my own studio one day. But she’s a woman, the person replied – she can’t build something like that. His reply was simple: she’s an artist – that means she can do anything she puts her mind to.
I’ve mentioned my flight instructor in other comments (a “tough old bird” and WWII veteran). With his encouragement and guidance, fairly early in my flight training I began tutoring other students in their ground school lessons and then began developing training materials for our flying club.
What I learned in the cockpit served me well in my career. I learned how to manage time, resources, and myself. I learned how to set goals, achieve them, and safely respond to changes in my operating environment. And I was able to apply the love of teaching which my flight instructor had nurtured.
Over the years, a couple of employees have balked at having a woman as their manager. One of them told me he didn’t like reporting work issues to me because he felt like he was having to go to mommy for help. (Listening to John Piper, that kind of thinking plays a central role in the whole “women shouldn’t lead men” mentality – but it’s just plain wrong.) I told my employee this: “My job is not “Woman Manager”. It’s “Business Manager”. Outside the office, you can think of me as mom if you’d like. But here, I’m wearing a “manager hat”, not a “mommy hat”. Think of the military – if a US servicewoman is stationed in Saudia Arabia, as long as she’s in uniform their laws concerning women don’t apply to her – in uniform she’s a US soldier. Same here. It’s the job that counts, not the gender of the person who’s filling it.” Then I asked if he didn’t expect the same consideration – would he want to be known as “the black manager” or the “you’re different than me so I don’t like reporting to you manager”? Of course not – he’d insist on being known and treated as “the business manager”. He said he hadn’t thought of it like that. We talked about it some more, then he thanked me, stuck out his hand, said he would look at it differently, and we shook on it.
Most of my aviation experience has been very positive, but there have been a couple of real hum-dingers. Some years ago, the FAA and a well-known aviation organization used to host monthly pilot information and training meetings at a local airport. A group of us would attend and I’d usually take a couple of our new students. One time, the award for flight instructor of the year was being presented. The person was known by a genderless nickname – Sandy or Frankie or something like that. However, there was a poster up just outside the meeting hall which included the pilot’s picture, and the meeting agenda clearly used the words “she” and “her” in describing her aviation career. Well, the representative of the aviation organization who was presenting the award was oblivious – and glaringly so, since the wording of his introductory speech made it sound like he and the instructor had been buds since way back – except that he kept referring to “he”, “him”, and “his”. Then, when she walked forward to accept the award he looked right past her and asked if “Mr. so and so” was in the auditorium and if so, to please come forward. She just said “I’m right here. I’m Sandy.”
But that’s not the end of the story. The same guy acted as moderator for an aviation quiz game at the end of the meeting. He’d ask a question and then call on audience members for the answer – with candy rewards for correct answers. I was there with three students – two men, one woman. They’d give me what they thought was the right answer and then I’d put my hand up for the group. We were in the front row, center. Time after time after time, the moderator looked past us and called on the same couple of guys more than once. My students started to notice. If someone got an answer wrong he’d ask if anyone knew it – up my hand would go, and twice he said, “No one knows? The answer is…” The third time that happened, an FAA inspector who was also on the stage stopped him. He noted that I’d raised my hand for every question and seemed to be part of a group that was being overlooked. He asked me to stand up. Now, it’s not like the other guy couldn’t see me. I’m six feet tall and my long arm was up there every single time. And he wasn’t just ignoring the know it all kid in the front row. I told the gentleman from the FAA that yes, I was here with three student pilots. He asked how many questions we’d gotten right – he guessed it was probably all of them. I told him he was correct. So then he turned to the schmuck on the stage and asked how many times no one else had given an answer. Three. With that, the FAA guy tossed me and each of my students three candy bars.
Was the AOPA guy a total jerk, or so completely clueless that he was blind? I really can’t tell. He may well have been so completely smug and wrapped up in self-righteous privilege that he thought it was perfectly acceptable to ignore female participants – even after clearly stepping in it and looking foolish earlier that evening. Or he may have been so flustered by the earlier faux pas that he really didn’t notice me, and just focused on a few familiar (or safely familiar-seeming) faces near the back of the room. I think it’s likely that, well meaning or not, he was simply and utterly blinded by his expectations and assumptions, “knowing” that the women in the room were there as wives or girlfriends and not because any were pilots themselves. Rather than the few “others” in the room standing out because of our difference, our difference made us invisible. We were simply part of the background. This is the power of expectation and the essence of privilege.
And so it is with the doctrine that states “women shall not teach or lead men”. So it is with all prejudices – beliefs that herd individuals into groups of “like” and “not like”, “approved” and “not approved”, “able” and “not able” based on assumption, presumption, and expectation. Mr. Piper may not realize it, but he is poorer for his insistence on gender hierarchy. His statements that this doctrine has nothing to do with the ability of women to teach or lead but is to prevent the emasculation of men and defeminization of women says far more about his own psyche, fears, and perceptions than it does about the ability of strong, confident men and women to learn from one another without feeling their sexuality is threatened. Thank goodness there are at least some men in this world who are comfortable in their own skins and understand the difference between form and substance. Unfortunately for John Piper, he’s told the world that he’s not among them.
AnonymousYes.
Good post Syl.
Dr. Piper has too much baggage and has missed his flight.Ha ha ha @Hugh you made me laugh.
Syl, keep ranting.
@syl must write more!!
great stuff.
AnonymousI so want to send the Piper stuff & Rachel Held-Evans blog post on it to my gf who is a Project Manager at a multi-national oil and gas company to get her take on it. I’ve never asked her how she feels about women in leadership / teaching positions in the church although I get the feeling that she’d take major issue w/ Piper and his ilk.
Anonymous@Syl – hands clapping, here.
The ironic thing is, it’s totally OK for women in most churches to teach kids (Sunday school) and be a missionary, which basically means they are teaching men who aren’t from their own culture. So long as they don’t get any of the “glory” jobs, it seems it’s OK for them to teach.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.