Conservative Christians: Being Feminine Means Childlike, Submissive, Demure
Supporters of this view typically insist that no offense is intended because they are simply describing the way women are. Women have a unique and special role in the family, in marriage, in the church, and in society. It's not "worse," it's just "different." This defense is simply not credible given how consistently the female role is described and depicted as inferior, subordinate, and lacking.
Conservapedia defines femininity as:
Femininity is the set of principles which form a womanly personality, many of which can be traced to the female reproductive role. While men often master their masculine traits well into adulthood and continually test the masculinity of their associates, femininity is something many women feel is rooted in their early development and is adjusted by picking up societal cues. Feminine characteristics are expressed through female gender roles.
Femininity builds a woman's esteem by enhancing her own interpersonal relationships rather than building confidence through the task-orientation of masculinity. Traditionally feminine traits include being emotional, demure, affectionate, sympathetic, sensitive, soft-spoken, warm, tender, childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive, understanding and compassionate.
So, being "feminine" is rooted in bearing children — and is it really a surprise that religious conservatives are criticized for seeing women as little more than walking wombs? Being "feminine" doesn't involve or require building confidence through talk-orientation, so presumably women don't need to engage in such activities. Instead, they should learn how to be more demure, childlike, willowy, pretty, and submissive. None of this applies to men who are taught by Christian leaders to disdain women's gender roles and "fixed" nature created by God.
Although conservative religion is the driving force behind such attitudes, it must be admitted that even non-religious conservatives may be found defending them. Keith Burgess-Jackson, for example, is an atheist "philosopher" who considers Conservapedia reliable, accurate, and authoritative enough to add it to his blogroll. He doesn't say whether he agrees with this particular entry, but this entry is very consistent with the rest of Conservapedia and its portrayal of society, morality, science, etc.
Comments
When I get my blog site running, I plan on including a weekly Conservapedia entry as well. But I’ll be looking for the saddest, most hilariously inaccurate ones and contrasting them with other online references that are actually based on reality as we know it.
The only thing funnier than Conservapedia is the Uncyclopedia, and that’s because it’s trying to be funny.
Does Burgess-Jackson even know what Conservapedia is? Or is he just posting it for others to consider? His blog doesn’t really seem to say, but it sure sounds like he’s taking it seriously.
I’ll never forget reading a section on Anne Bradstreet in Early American Literature. One of the things about her writing that still stands out to me were entries in her journals about her town. The people were very religious. And Anne disagreed with some of their rules and doctrines. She thought they were wrong. And her insights were quite intelligent.
It’s too bad she never spoke up at a town hall meeting to let them know about her thoughts and ideas. Know why she didn’t? In her journals, she explains how one of her female friends spoke up and voiced disagreement with the male village leaders. She found herself on the first ship back to the Old World, with instructions to commit her to an asylum there–as any woman who voiced opposition had clearly lost her faculties.
I’m grateful I live now and not then. Any woman who wishes to be part of such a group is welcome to do so. I only ask that I continue to be allowed the choice to not do so myself.
Traditionally feminine traits include being emotional, demure, affectionate, sympathetic, sensitive, soft-spoken, warm, tender, childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive, understanding and compassionate.
You know, these are characteristics I once hoped to find in the opposite sex — when I was thirteen and afraid of girls.
Tom. A man marrys a woman hoping she will never change, and a woman marrys a man hoping she can change him.
LOL
And yet, Ann Coulter NEVER seems to even try to be affectionate, sympathetic, sensitive, soft-spoken, warm, tender, childlike, gentle, willowy, submissive, understanding or compassionate. How can she be the way she is AND be a conservative christian if this is how conservative christians all see women? I think there might be some exceptions. I found a website by just such an exception. The woman who runs describes herself as a “conservative feminist”.
411314. It is said by the professionals who study the gay phenominon that a person cannot change his or her sexual orientation. I question that. IF Ann coulter were the only woman left in the world, I think my orientation would change real fast!
And yet, Ann Coulter NEVER seems to even try to be affectionate, sympathetic, sensitive, soft-spoken, warm, tender, childlike, gentle, willowy, submissive, understanding or compassionate.
The right-wing finds it terribly sexy to be hateful, callous, bombastic, shrill, authoritarian, heavy-handed, hyperbolic, agressive, obtuse and vindictive when dealing with the opposition.
Women are cunning, observant, and relentless. They are just like any slave would be when ruled by a master.
The saddest thing in the world is that there are women (like Ann Coulter) who think that women SHOULD be like this, SHOULD be under the thumb of men, and SHOULD be nothing more than walking wombs. Their arguments vary but some of the most common ones are:
1. “It’s how it’s always been.”
My argument to that: Isn’t that what the U.S. is supposedly about? Improving? Well-behaved women never made history…
2. “Eve made Adam take the fruit and blah, blah, blah…”
My argument: Not everyone’s a Catholic. MEN wrote the bible. Get OVER yourself.
3. “It isn’t meant to be offensive. It’s just the truth.”
Argument: I challenge you to cite your informati-But, wait! Conservapedia’s off-limits! And so is every Catholic site! …And the bible! …That’s right. You HAVE no sources.
While I’m in favor of a battle of wits, I do not attack unarmed opponents.
Signed,
Makki, emotional, affectionate, sympathetic, warm, gentle, understanding, and in NO way submissive to ANYONE.
P.S. Am I the only one who has the strong urge to ram a spork into my cerebral cortex whenever someone cites the bible as their source for bigoted beliefs and/or biases? For them, it’s just an easy-escape-fits-my-beliefs encylopedia. Feel free to have your beliefs, but don’t force them on me!
P.P.S. Sorry for the long comment. Sometimes, I get started typing and I can’t stop.
Makki - Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally; we don’t (for the most part, save for the extremists) believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, therefore we do not believe that the story is supposed to mean women are the root of men’s evil.
Please don’t lump Christian extremists into some other religion. You really give us a bad rep. Worse than we already have. We don’t need that.
Also;
Well-behaved women never made history, indeed.