So amidst a crowd of children wanting to touch the gavel new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took her new position as the third most powerful person in our country - the first women ever to hold that position. The commentary on this event has been everywhere. A few things I found interesting.
In a editorial in Ode Magazine about women in global politics (apparently it's highly likely that by 2009 there will be at least 3 women on the G8) the author looked at the difference women bring to politics. In the past most women in positions of power got to that point by being like men. Margaret Thatcher was often called "the best man on the cabinet." But new leaders like Pelosi are bringing a revolutionary new way of being female in government - as in they are content in being female and aren't afraid to bring their experiences with traditional female roles into the political arena. As seen in the picture Pelosi doesn't hide that yes she is a mother and a grandmother. She will not abandon that identity just because she now has "more important things to do." Which of course helps us see the absurdity of that hierarchy to begin with. She also has chosen to not act like the alpha males in politics. As the editorial said - "At her first press conference after the Democrat's November win, Pelosi spoke in distinctly soft, controlled, feminine tones. Journalists in attendance were visibly frustrated, and Pelosi finally raised her voice, saying, 'But I could use my mother-of-five voice.'" Another interesting perspective is this recent Salon article.
I like the idea of female politicians not having to compromise one more aspect of who they are in order to play the politics game. But will it work? Will women ever get respect if they are not men or pretending to be men? Does it work the same way in the church, or is it only in women embracing the traditional female roles that they are valued in the church? How can we start to let all aspects of life inform each other? A mother in politics (and one that is fully both) - deciding who to (or more importantly whether or not to) torture or send to die in war would be a good balance imho.
What are your thoughts?
Labels: Gender Issues, Politics
This is an interesting topic for me, which I'd love to spend about a weekend conversing about. That said, a few things from my experience.
I'm ordained clergy, currently serving more in a layperson's role in a non-denominational church.
I head up our main decisionmaking body, am the senior pastor's right arm, teach adults in small groups and preach regularly.
I'm gifted at these particular roles, and the only flack I get about them is from visitors and short-time attenders to the church who are just conservatively Christian-culturally opposed to women having church leadership responsibilites. These folks are often confused about our church because we superficially seem like their kind of place, but when they realize the more egalitarian role we offer women, they usually leave. Of course, not without telling me that I am aiding Satan, etc.
However, I feel I am accepted as a leader by the regular attenders and partners (members) of the church. In fact, I don't feel the "woman" thing even comes up. I'm a good preacher, so unless you're a person who thinks women shouldn't preach, you're OK with me.
Now, one thing I do not do is try to be consciously feminine as I lead. I am just me up there. Sure, sometimes my female perspective is part of the package, but I don't push on that. I am who I am.
I grew up in the UMC, during the time when women were new to the pastorate. So many of the early women pastors were hyper-conscious that they were bringing in a new perspective. It is hard to blame them, but I remember hearing tons of sermons ONLY about women in the Bible, or ONLY about "women's issues." Every illustration had to do with being a mother or nurturing, or some such thing. I even recall a Good Friday sermon told from Jesus' mother's perspective about how during the crucifixion she must have been thinking about how proud she was that Jesus was for women's rights. (!)
So, I think women can go too far overboard the other direction when they finally achieve things like church leadership or politics. It's a natural inclination---you've fought so hard for something, you want to really make sure that once you have this platform you *make* people get it.
But I think after a while, when sharing leadership becomes more commonplace and not such a novelty, then there is room for people like me to emerge who are just ourselves. When our gender comes out, it will come out naturally, and not in a "we have to keep reminding people we are women" kind of way.
I hope Nancy Pelosi soon settles into her role as speaker and doesn't feel the need to push on her gender. But since she's the first woman speaker, she may feel obligated to do the "70s women pastor thing." It kind of goes with the pioneer territory.