Have you ever been caught up in a discussion about whether a factor is a result of Nature - our inherited characteristics, or Nurture - our environment? The obvious answer is it's usually both. Studies of identical twins raised apart has thrown up some fascinating results about the strength of genetics, but different cultural and familial factors can also have a decisive impact on the development of personality, and whether a genetic disposition is expressed or not.
My parents always spoke about my determined nature being evident from birth. I wasn't someone who had to be coaxed out of the womb, past the due date, with the bonnie abundance of a big baby. I came quickly and a month early, weighing just under 5 lbs. Was I going to be that kind of person from the beginning? Or did the struggles of a premature birth create in me 'the fighter' as a product of learned behaviour? I don't know if 'warrior types' are primarily born or made but, in my case, there were plenty of challenges in the environment to continue the development.
I was the younger sibling of an older brother, who ensured that I would know who was boss. This is the natural order of things, as any sibling group would know. Older = Senior. However, age was not the only factor in play. Having a male sibling gave me an opportunity to compare the difference that sex and gender had on our lives. I should also put this into its cultural context. This was the 1970s. While there had been global movements to challenge the Patriarchy, these hadn't filtered down to everyday life in the UK. My school books were still littered with courageous Princes rescuing (frankly useless) Maidens from tall towers, who only seemed to be interested in growing their hair, doing their embroidery, and waiting for their handsome prince to marry them. Some had 'Janet and John' books, but I remember 'Peter and Jane'. Jane was always helping Mummy in the kitchen, while Peter and Daddy were outside doing something I'd much rather have done. Men were the actors, the players, and the protagonists. Women were the static ones, who were there to look pretty and be grateful for any, and all, male attention. The sexism in TV Comedy programmes like 'The Benny Hill Show'
was the background noise of my childhood and I laughed along with it too.
At some level, recognising that boys seemed to have a better deal, I became a 'Tomboy'. In play, I took on the male roles. I was going to be Robin Hood, not Maid Marion, and yes I did want my own pair of boots to play football with the boys. My mother tells the story of how my primary school Headteacher didn't want girls playing in the team, so he purposefully stuck me in goal on a freezing afternoon, in a bid to ensure that I moved to an appropriate 'girls sport' such as netball, and it worked. Slowly but surely the cultural forces of socialisation attempted to shape my expectations and practices, not as extremely as they had in my Mother's generation, but still firmly enough. My secondary education, which was in an all-girls school, offered me Home Economics and Needlework, both of which I was rubbish at and totally uninterested in. Some of the subtle and not-so-subtle messages of a 'woman's place' were still at work, which may seem ludicrous and archaic to young women in the same school now.
The working world wasn't any better. When I took on a Saturday job working in the kitchens of a local public boys school, I was soon asked to do waitressing for the Masters' dining room. I'd been told by the manager that he wanted 'attractive birds with brains'
to do it. Would this be a named requirement for male employees too? I sincerely doubt it.
Then when my boyfriend had to re-apply for a job in his County Council, his boss, who I'd never met before, said to me 'if you want him to get this job, you ought to be nice to me!'
I thought it was outrageous then, and I think it's despicable now. I suspect that the 'Me Too' movement is only scratching the surface of the reality of what women have lived through. If we really want to have our hair stand on end, we need to talk to our mothers and grand-mothers. 'It was different back in our day'
they'd say, only revealing the inculturation of acceptance and silence where 'not making a fuss about it' was the expected norm.
Practically every woman I know has a history of incidents logged in her memory of when she was treated as if she were 'less than' her male peers. It's the kind of thing that makes warriors of us all, unless of course, we sublimate it to keep the peace and not make waves. I understand that because speaking out can be costly. We may be ridiculed, or get 'a name for ourselves'. Or, more seriously, it may have real repercussions that affect us materially as well as psychologically and emotionally. It is a risk, and we as women will draw the fire if we are ones who put our heads above the parapet.
One might like to think that now in 2021 we are making great strides forward in the equality of the sexes, but we know we're only just getting started. The gender pay gap still exists and there are lingering issues, more in attitude than regulation now, about maternity leave and childcare. Many women report that they still seem to have to work twice as hard as their male counterparts to be considered for promotion. I'm not suggesting it's deliberate, I suspect it's mostly unconscious bias. It has seeped in insidiously, and become normal. Yet because it's not called out and deconstructed in a way to promote mutual learning, it's unthinkingly passed on, thus perpetuating the cycle.
And then there's the Church. Where do we begin? We could talk about the early women leaders being 'airbrushed out' of its history. We could show how scripture has been used and abused to further this cause. We can see how, armed with only one side of the correspondence, the advice relating to women in the pastoral letters took on a precedence in subsequent generations, the author may not have intended it to have. For example, Paul's letters to Timothy - speaking into the specific context in Ephesus - have become the 'go to' texts prohibiting women in leadership. Yet Paul has a list of women he greets and affirms as fellow-workers and partners in the Gospel. These anomalies seem to be ignored when a certain interpretation is preferred, repeated and taught as the Word of God. We could also speak about how translations have supported confirmation bias, to change the names of female apostles into male, because it was deemed impossible hat a woman would hold that position. We could allude to the anxiety there is about women's sexuality that spills over into religious belief. So Mary, the Mother of Jesus, can only remain the pinnacle of womanhood to some, if she is mother and perpetual
virgin. She's not allowed to be a real woman with a normal, healthy, sexual relationship. The anxiety comes more forcibly to the surface when Mary Magdalene, an 'Apostle to the Apostles' is described as being a prostitute. Despite the later correction, Mary never quite outruns her bad press and the prejudice still lingers. Perhaps the woman who is most heinously treated is Eve. Called by Tertullian, the Early Church Father, - 'The Devil's Gateway'
she has been held disproportionately responsible for the Fall.
We could go on to show how the contribution of women in scripture has been undervalued compared with their male counterparts. In the Hebrew scriptures we have Esther, Deborah, Ruth and Miriam, to name just a few of the heroines with a warrior heart, and in the New Testament, we have Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe, Lydia, and many others. This is before we count the number of women in both Testaments, who are never even given a name, despite being central to that passage of the narrative.
For me, the most significant offence in this area is our failure to follow Jesus' lead, in his acceptance, his honouring and his inclusion of women. Whereas Jesus was willing to cross cultural and religious boundaries to affirm women, it wasn't long before the pendulum swung back to the conservative status quo. The 'thank you Ladies, we can take it from here' became the androcratic response at some point in the Early Church and we are still living with the effects now. And yet, there are still those figures throughout history who kept the warrior spirit alive.
Revd. Lindsay Llewellyn-MacDuff, the Chaplain to the Bishop of Rochester, has written about some of these characters in a book on the 'Imagined Church in Kent - the story of women's witness in, through, (and despite) Kent.' In it she writes about queens, scholars, nuns, rebels, missionaries, teachers and reformers all playing a part in the story of faith. This kind of text should be included on the syllabus in the same way that other histories have, and have challenged our white Eurocentric view of events. Maybe this kind of literature is included in some places, but I suspect as an essay option 'for those who like to study that kind of thing' not as a main core text for everyone. While we make this kind of learning optional, we allow the status quo to continue unimpeded. Those with the privilege often don't feel the need to engage with it, because they think it doesn't directly relate to them. It is only the education of all and the calling out of discrimination (conscious or unconscious) that will make a different world.
There are times when I catch glimpses of it but then something is said or done which shows that sexism and misogyny are alive and well and not far below the surface. Perhaps we've been lulled into a false security by a political correctness that hasn't tackled the underlying problem. It's the attitude that 'you've got a seat at the table now, so stop whining'. The problem with that analysis is that we've only been allowed that seat through the introduction of legislative provision, which still enables others to pretend that we're not there. 'Mutual flourishing' is a convenient way of holding together the concept of opposing positions, but it doesn't make sense when we are talking about issues of justice and equality.
Underneath it all, women, and those who support them, are still going cap-in-hand to those who hold the power to allow us to be. It leaves untouched the patriarchal viewpoints that are perpetuating the problem. When we allow our critics to define us, and there's nothing that does that more succinctly than the descriptor 'feminist', we cede the power of our words. I know that terms can be reclaimed and reframed by communities, but I'd rather not give the critic the semantic advantage. The Warrior spirit in me is stirred by an injustice which I do not believe is in the heart of God, as expressed through Jesus. We have just had the reading of the cleansing of the Temple in John's Gospel where Jesus showed his righteous anger at the extortion and corruption of the place where God was thought to dwell. Those who were considered to be God's representatives were oppressing the poor and exploiting their piety in the sacrificial system for their own gain and Jesus did not let it go. Instead his response was full-on and would have made him many enemies, but there are some things worth making a stand for.
As I write this blog I'm aware of my cultural conditioning begging me to stop now. I am in danger of sounding 'strident' (which - by the way - is a word only used in relation to women who have dared to get out of their designated box.) It's like saying 'stop now, you've made your point and you'll only upset everyone if you keep going'. Justice, truth and equality are the casualties when comfort in the status quo has the whip hand. To all those women who can relate to this inner-censor, I quote some words from Jayne Manfredi.
Discover your warrior heart within because there are some things worth fighting for. Remaining quiet only maintains the status quo. Don't think that the battle is over, it's still raging all around us.