On a Firm Foundation

"We who like the children of Israel have been wandering in the wilderness of prejudice and ridicule for forty years feel a peculiar tenderness for the young women on whose shoulders we are about to leave our burdens....The younger women are starting with great advantages over us. They have the results of our experience; they have superior opportunities for education; they will find a more enlightened public sentiment for discussion; they will have more courage to take the rights which belong to them....Thus far women have been the mere echoes of men. Our laws and constitutions, our creeds and codes, and the customs of social life are all of masculine origin. The true woman is as yet a dream of the future."
--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1888

It was 1888 when Elizabeth Cady Stanton made the above speech at the International Council on Women. Reading her comments in 1988--a full century later--it is clear that her optimistic prediction for the next generation went largely unfulfilled. In fact, the wave of self-conscious feminism of the 19th century all but died out in the next and successive generations, and women's gains were either undone or absorbed into the status quo and taken for granted.

This century's women's movement, "the second wave," began in the late 1950s. It was not fueled by the momentum of previous generations but rather was lit like a spark from some smoldering ember, ignited by the black civil rights movement. The women of the second wave generation, with few and notable exceptions, could not look to their mothers and grandmothers for a strategy for social change and personal empowerment. They inherited instead the same legacy of prejudice and ridicule--the same "society of masculine origin"--that the 19th-century feminists confronted. They had to build on a scant foundation and dim memories of distant times.

In the United States, the decades since the 1950s have been years of tremendous change. As civil rights legislation granted new rights to black people, laws were also expanded to include civil rights for women, and a number of significant court cases challenged discrimination on the basis of gender--all of this setting a more open legislative tone. The National Organization for Women was founded in 1966, and its lobbying efforts have been effective in state and national politics.

In the '60s women began to write and publish as never before in history--essays, poetry, fiction, and research--and the sheer volume and content of the work altered our public attitudes toward women (and by extension, men). Women scholars in the fields of history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, art, and religion began to challenge male assumptions and interpretive biases. Women's experiences, language, symbols, and images became dynamic parts of popular culture.

Employment discrimination was challenged, and hundreds of jobs, professions, and unions that were closed to women were opened. Equal pay for equal work became a topic of debate and a goal for agitation.

Single and divorced women were finally able to obtain credit, sign leases, buy property, and obtain services that were previously denied them. And for the first time in Western history, women took access to information about birth control and their particular health care issues that had previously been denied to them by the male medical and clerical establishments. And that knowledge empowered women to make informed choices about their health.

Along with real and perceived changes in women's opportunities in public life, of course, came tremendous upheaval and change in women's personal lives. Women began having different expectations and assumptions in relationship to their husbands and partners, in relationship to their children, in relationship to their parents and other family members. As women came to view themselves in healthier ways, they claimed more autonomy and individuality and began to ask more from those with whom they were in close relationship.

Perhaps the most important and notable change during the decades from the 1950s to the present is that women identified themselves as a group with common concerns and shared experience and began, within an intentional movement, to reach out to other women for support and companionship, for ideas and strategies, for identification and solidarity. And feminism was broadly known and acknowledged as a critique of the status quo and a force for social change.

Because so much has changed, we may be tempted to think that the victory is won and the goals realized. Yet the essential nature of patriarchal capitalism has remained unchanged. In spite of all the progress cited above, women have been largely kept out of the most powerful and influential areas of public life--government, business, and mass media--and therefore have limited impact in shaping our society. Sexism remains a powerful and pervasive reality and is still experienced by most women (whether they recognize it as such or not) in overt, covert, and subtle forms.

Our institutions have yielded to allow participation by some women (mostly white and privileged) in token numbers and token positions. Because of this the issues of race and class have remained divisive within the women's movement itself.

STANTON'S THOUGHTS SERVE TO point us with great urgency toward the next generation and the future. Are we building a movement on the experience, thought, analysis, strategy, and vision of previous generations of feminists--or are women more deeply isolated than ever? Have the benefits of certain rights and advantages for some women served as positive building blocks or have they led to complacency and even arrogance for those who have benefited? Are women now clear enough about the rights that belong to us, and bold enough to claim them, or are we confused about the goals of liberation?

"The true woman is as yet a dream of the future." Stanton thought that the dream was to be realized in the next generation, just out of her own struggling reach. And yet the dream remains elusive. We are now in danger of having it clouded over and submerged once again.

Ours is a vitally important time for building up and strengthening each other for the long haul--for the benefit of future generations. It is a vitally important time for overcoming the divisions and barriers between us and finding common ground. The task at hand is that of setting our feet on a firm foundation of feminist history, thought, and achievement and clarifying a common vision for the future. Christian feminists, both men and women, must consider the particular contributions we might make to the movement for social justice called feminism.

Basic to that task is the work of acquiring an understanding of feminism that is free of shallow or false media images, in order to avoid reaction and withdrawal. Feminism is not one simple philosophy or worldview but represents many streams of thought and varied approaches, all of which grow out of particular experiences and provide particular insights. The variety of "voices" known as feminism appear at times even to be contradictory, with the end result being confusion and disillusionment for many women and men. Rather than being problematic, the diversity of feminist theory could be viewed as a benefit if we see the strength of the varying approaches and evaluate with an eye toward understanding and synthesis.

Against a force as demonic as sexism, we need each other and the unique contributions offered from our diversity. By synthesis we cannot mean anything as restrictive as adopting one perspective or one "correct" analysis because we would risk falling into the trap of elitism and exclusivity. Instead, the goal is respect and understanding in order to give each other room to grow and work. The following discussion of the streams of feminist thought is offered not to categorize and label, since it is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive. It is an effort to provide useful handles and deeper insights.

THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERAL, or mainstream, feminism has already been discussed briefly here, with obvious admiration and gratitude for its achievements. It is also perhaps the most readily available form of feminism through media and popular culture. The basic goal of liberal feminism is equality under the Constitution and the law, and, as such, it takes the goals of all liberal reform movements in our history and applies them to women. The status of women as second-class citizens in a democracy is the primary concern of liberal feminism.

The notion of equality is a valuable one for the sake of political and economic reform in that it is an available avenue to improve markedly the conditions of daily life for many people. It provides women with a direct course of action and clear and measurable victories. It is also very American and holds great public appeal.

The problem with the platform of liberal feminism is that it is not critical enough of our society. Liberal feminism does not begin with a critique of patriarchy and so can lead to short-sighted or narrow solutions, such as viewing female military conscription as a goal worth campaigning for. What one should strive to be equal to, in this approach, is the standard our forefathers set for themselves: the privileges of white, propertied men in a capitalist system that demands a lower stratum--whether in this country or in the global community. Because our society's myth and symbol system is based on a division between the deserving and the undeserving, people of color and all women will only achieve limited freedom and token acceptance in society as it stands.

The place of Christian feminist participation in liberal feminist organizations--as in other mainstream political channels--would be found at the point of pushing for a more probing analysis, while at the same time participating in and applauding valuable gains. It is important for two reasons not to stand too far removed from such efforts. The first is that we are--regardless of who we are--indebted to such reformers and their improvements on our institutions. The second, and perhaps more important, is that such distance leads to the illusion that we can remain pure from the taint of society. We cannot, and the arrogance of thinking that we can keeps us from solidarity with other people.

SOCIALIST FEMINISM PROVIDES a more thorough cultural critique. Feminist thought has been a cornerstone of socialism since its beginnings. In all of modern industrialization, women (and often children) have been part of the wage labor force and therefore, in socialist analysis, part of the oppressed and exploited working class. Emphasizing this perspective, socialist feminism recognizes that the exploitation of women is true the world over, in both domestic and public work.

This basic assumption gives socialist feminism its global perspective and marks its most valuable contribution to feminist theory. Within a basic understanding of class oppression, just working conditions and economic independence are seen as the keys to women's liberation.

Countries with a socialist economic orientation have in fact made great progress in relatively little time in implementing much of the socialist feminist agenda, and women are often better off than they were under the previous regimes. Laws have been changed to end discrimination in marriage and family life, in education and work, in civil and public life. Women in large numbers have been successfully integrated into the paid work force. Some socialist countries have also tried to alleviate the burdens of domestic work by opening state-run day-care centers.

Even so, in most socialist countries women are still segregated to the lower echelons of privilege and power and are not found in decision-making positions in any significant numbers, in either government or business. They are still paid less than men and have fewer opportunities for advancement. They are still seen as the primary caretakers in the home and with children, leaving them unable to participate as fully as men in public life--just as in most capitalist economies. And while German socialist Friedrich Engels challenged as bourgeois the notion that women are the weaker and less-competent sex, those stereotypes are still widely held and reinforced in socialist countries.

It is also true that socialism, like capitalism, emphasizes productivity and power among its highest values. Socialist feminism does not essentially challenge the male/female dualism rooted in other hierarchies of power and the progress of civilization over nature. Socialist feminist analysis points us away from middle-class and ethnocentric thinking and toward the broader concerns of the global community but does not confront patriarchal modes and values.

SEPARATIST, OR RADICAL, feminism offers a critique of patriarchal culture--its modes, systems, values, and objectives--in perceiving women as dominated body and suppressed emotion in a male-controlled world. It is radical in that it attempts to get to the core of the patriarchal problem. It is separatist in its solution.

Separatist analysis highlights the "differences" between men and women, whether inherent or socialized, and casts femaleness in positive terms and maleness in negative terms. Control, aggression, rationality, linear thinking, competition, and independence are viewed as masculine characteristics. Nurture, gentleness, emotion, associative thinking, cooperation, and interdependence are viewed as feminine characteristics.

It is worth noting that separatist feminists are not the only people who draw such masculine and feminine dichotomies. They are found in one form or another in almost every field and discipline in both academia and popular culture. What distinguishes separatist feminists is the choosing of feminine qualities and female culture and the rejecting of masculine qualities and male culture.

Separatist feminists believe that, because of their relative powerlessness, women's gifts and qualities will always be suppressed and exploited in the institutions of male culture, including the family, and in male/female relationships. Separatism is more of a political posture than a political agenda. It is self-marginalizing. It does not attempt to influence the culture at large, except by the refusal to participate and by example.

One of the results of this indifference to mainstream culture has been the freeing up of women's artistic expression and language for the sheer joy and experimentation of it. Without concern for being misunderstood or offensive, artists and writers have tapped into enormous creative energy in describing and delighting in the female experience.

One of the insights of separatist feminism is its emphasis on the freedom and confidence that can come from participating in groups and events and work experiences only with women. But this form of empowerment is distinctly different from the discriminatory practices of male-only institutions. The former is an organizing tactic for mutual empowerment, the latter is an established structure for protecting exclusive power.

The dangers of separatist feminism lie within its understanding of the "differences" between women and men and the positing of evil in men and the male world. It may help our understanding if we realize that this radical feminist belief is actually a reversal of traditional Christian doctrine with its theology of female moral and religious inferiority based on the second creation account in the book of Genesis. That foundation of Judeo-Christian theology has so influenced our culture that, in psychological terms, women become "the other" who is everything men do not want to be--the aberration to the male norm.

Separatist feminism makes men the enemy onto which women project all their own aggressive, competitive, or ego-driven tendencies, while at the same time denying the negative side of feminine characteristics and traits. In other words, it denies the full range of human potential to both women and men alike. While often well-founded in the pain of women's experience, it is finally a conclusion drawn from despair. This projection does not allow the possibility of transformation and healing among men or in the relationships between women and men.

ROMANTIC FEMINISM ALSO highlights the "differences" between male and female, or masculine and feminine, characteristics and traits but draws very different conclusions. Romantic feminists view the public and political world of men as imbalanced and in need of the correctives of nurture and compassion that are offered by women. Romantic feminists believe that women's influence over the domestic world of home and children should be extended in order to civilize and soften the harsh male domain. Romantic feminists might, for example, believe that peaceful conflict resolution is more natural to women than to men, and, therefore, women's unique perspective must be brought to bear on national defense and foreign policy.

The same understanding of this male/female, public/domestic dichotomy is the basis of what we might call the anti-feminist perspective. This view was evident in President Reagan's thinking when he said that if it weren't for women, men would still be wearing animal skins and carrying clubs. The anti-feminist perspective provides the basis of the political Right's platform of patriarchal protection of family values.

The valuable contribution of romantic feminism is its recognition of the importance and value of women's traditional roles and occupations. Romantic feminists have celebrated traditional women's culture while acknowledging that it is suppressed and overlooked by the dominant culture. They have led the movement in rediscovering and reclaiming the contributions of women throughout history. They have also held on to a recognition of the value of mothering and family relationships that can seem at risk in other feminist analyses and goals.

The difficulty with the romantic feminist perspective is that it can serve to reinforce the dualism between male and female, masculine and feminine, public and private, political and personal. It can serve to keep women in the seemingly more feminine, and therefore more "appropriate," roles of mothering and other domestic and support work. It can also serve to place the burden of men's actions and problems on women's shoulders, since it suggests that women should exercise a civilizing and softening role in our culture. In truth, however, women are not responsible for men and men's choices.

IN HER 1985 BOOK, In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens, Alice Walker coined the term "womanist" to describe the unique perspective of black feminists. In describing what womanists are, Walker wrote, "Womanists love the struggle, womanists love the folk...." These two identifying characteristics make it clear that most black women have not had the more comfortable life of white middle- and upper-class women, have not been put on a pedestal, have not been considered delicate or in need of protection, and have not seen their liberation as women to be separate from their identity as black people. For North American black women, and for women of color the world over, the feminist agenda necessarily differs from that of white middle- and upper-middle-class women because of the triple burden of race, class, and sex.

The significance of these contributions to the feminist dialogue is considerable. That some women have struggled against tremendous odds and endured all manner of hardship is an important corrective to the social myth of woman as the weaker sex. Black women have the knowledge of their strength and forbearance, and this results in tremendous personal power--no matter what society may say, no matter how restricted their sphere of influence.

Black women's identification with black men and children in the struggle, first against slavery and then against racism, makes the bonds of race and family strong. It also acknowledges deep roots in domestic and rural traditions, which make up so much of black history, since the dominant culture (that is, white, male, and urban) was closed to black women and their families. Womanists are more in touch with the powerful stories and images of women from their history as a people.

The weakness of black feminist analysis lies within these strengths. The first is an occasional reluctance to critique the movement for black freedom at the point of its sexism. The second is the tendency to generalize about the experience and circumstances of white women without acknowledging their class and ethnic differences.

Individually, black women have contributed to and identify themselves with the other streams of feminism discussed here. Black feminists do not all think alike anymore than white feminists do. But all black women have the experience of being discriminated against in a racist society, and that experience makes their contributions vital to whatever vision feminism might offer for a just and humane future.

THE FEMINIST AXIOM says that the personal is always political. The unique contribution that women of faith can make to feminism is the insight that the personal and political are always essentially spiritual. The demands of feminism--in both our personal lives and in the culture at large--are too great to suggest simply reforming the status quo or making a few adjustments. Feminism is a movement toward radical change and transformation. Its actualization demands conversion, and conversion is always a spiritual issue requiring spiritual force.

We Christian feminists find ourselves in a paradoxical position. We stand within a tradition that has been and continues to be oppressive yet holds within its life and teaching the seeds for our empowerment and liberation. Both the wisdom and the prophetic writings in our scriptures give us images, instruction, and encouragement for our conversion. Our faith centers on the person of Jesus, God incarnate, who came to demonstrate a different way of being human. Central to the life and teaching of Jesus was the message of liberation--the good news of God's new order where the mighty are brought low and the humble exalted.

We have centuries of foremothers and forefathers in the faith whose lives testify to the fact that tremendous change can happen within a person, within a church, and within a society. Their witness reminds us to be open to the Spirit and never to lose courage.

Christian feminists also come from many experiences--both in the church and in the culture at large--and do not have one analysis of the problem of patriarchy or the goals of liberation. Some Christian feminists have chosen to remain within traditional church structures and models to bring about change. Others have chosen to step outside and begin to form new models that are life-giving for them.

The ability to listen carefully to other Christian feminists and respect different choices is grounded in our own security in what we have chosen and our trust in the Spirit. We need diversity of insight and approach within the church as well as within the culture.

One of the seeming contradictions within the streams of feminist thinking, Christian and otherwise, has to do with our basic understanding of male and female qualities and characteristics. Some feminist analysis seems to highlight perceived differences and makes them the foundation for strategizing, whether the solution affects a select group or is a tactic for changing an institution or the society as a whole.

Other streams of feminist thought seem to imply that there is no essential difference between men and women, except for their position in society. This view holds that men are formed by the experience of greater power and privilege and women are formed by the experience of powerlessness and deprivation.

Final proof for either perspective is elusive. Many of the studies conducted to determine tendencies reveal differences in the majority of women as compared to the majority of men, but whether those differences have to do with masculine and feminine distinctions or with our experiences in the world is perhaps impossible to determine.

It has been helpful to gain the insight that women tend to approach life in a somewhat different way than men, at least in our culture and under certain circumstances. However, such insights applied too broadly or held too rigidly seem to lead inevitably toward exclusion of those who are exceptions.

It may be best to view maleness and femaleness as a continuum of qualities, characteristics, and physical attributes and to realize that each of us, even after intensive gender socialization, simply falls somewhere along the continuum. As Dorothy Sayers said in her 1938 essay "The-Human-Not-Quite-Human," it is unfortunate that men consider women to be the opposite sex instead of the neighboring sex. Being human means that we are uniquely ourselves and also more like each other than anything else in creation.

Sayers went on to say that men are considered to be both human and distinctly male, while women are viewed as particularly female, with every characteristic being attributed to their particularity. Liberation must include the rise in status for women to the position of being both fully human and distinctly female, with the full range of limitations and possibilities afforded by that position.

Liberation involves the corrective of valuing women's past experience and the work that women have traditionally done. It also means taking away restrictions--whether they are legal or attitudinal--so that women can participate as fully as possible in all areas of life and work.

OUR VISION FOR LIBERATION has to be deeply rooted in responsible analysis of gender, ethnic, and class oppression so that we don't climb out of our ghetto by standing on someone else's back. We live in a society, and beyond that, in a world, in which all the "isms" are interdependent, and it is difficult to get at one without tripping over another. It is tempting to over-simplify our analysis in order to achieve clarity, but the cost of doing so is high. We need to find ways of talking about our experience that do not create hierarchies of oppression or deny other people's experiences.

When we choose a lifestyle of alienation and anger, we will simply become more alienated and angry beyond our choosing. It is also true that anger, when recognized and channeled, can be a positive and powerful force for change. Liberation must always contain in its promises the possibility of healing and personal wholeness. Therefore, it must always hold open the possibility of reconciliation.

Christian feminists have a powerful experience of reconciliation to offer to the broader women's movement. We know that we ourselves have fallen short of God's intention and have been given the gift of reconciliation. Knowing our own dependence on grace can make us channels for grace and healing in the church and in the world, which includes speaking the truth with power.

Many women of faith precede us--biblical women, saints, preachers, healers, evangelical pioneers, and mystics--who all loved God and God's way. In their tradition, we can proclaim the message of liberation in freedom and joy even in the very midst of struggle.

In her book Beyond Power, Marilyn French concludes that it will take centuries to overcome the hold that patriarchy has on every area of life in our society and throughout most of the world. That assessment can seem pessimistic and result in paralysis and hopelessness. Or it can remind us of the seriousness of our task, encourage us to rely on the Spirit for the power of conversion, and make us determined to, in our own generation and with all the resources at our disposal, contribute what we can to that eventual goal.

We have past centuries of women's ideas and actions to build on; we have the wisdom and power of our spiritual tradition; and we have a wide, diverse, and dynamic movement in which to work. All of our creative imaginations are necessary for seeing a different kind of future. The true woman still waits in a dream-state for her awakening.

Ginny Earnest was a coordinator of Sojourners Internship Program and a member of Sojourners Community Church when this article appeared.