Yesterday in my Mass Media and Cultural Studies class, we viewed the film "The Monstrous Regiment of Women". It has won awards at an independent Christian film festival, and is becoming increasingly popular within certain Christian communities. Before I give my reactions, I just want to help you get a general idea of the film's content with this trailer:
Just to begin, I want to make clear the position from which I write this blog post. I am a committed Christian, and my understanding is that Christ's life and calling for his followers resists injustice and oppression in the world. I consider myself a feminist in that all women should have equal opportunities, education, and the ability to fulfill their own individual potential, which is DEFINITELY not limited to being a wife and mother (although I have ZERO problem with a woman who finds joy and fulfillment in that life). I see sexism still ingrained in cultures around the world (including America), I see this damage the lives of innumerable women.
Anyway, in regards to the film...
I decided to pick three main ideas and then explain how each is presented in the film, along with my own reaction to that point. There will be times where it sounds as though I am exaggerating the views of the filmmakers and those interviewed in the film. THESE ARE NOT EXAGGERATIONS (although I wish they were):
I. Feminism ideas are consistent throughout all those who ascribe to that label.
The filmmakers were very careful to only interview certain feminists that either appear irrational or exhibit (seemingly) radical ideas. Then, they apply that stereotype to ALL feminists and subsequently condemn them. For example, in the section on abortion, they interview a reformed employee of Planned Parenthood who explains that she used to encourage students into an active sexual lifestyle so that she could make money off of abortions. This is not realistic or representative of even a respectable minority of feminists...I can honestly say I have never met a single woman that would applaud horrific actions such as those.
The film concludes that all feminists support the choice to have an abortion, want more women to have abortions, and literally hate children. This then leads to a discussion on how these views are against Christian beliefs.
I wish I could even address the debate of abortion and Christianity, but all their premises for this "argument" are without any substance. Not all feminists are pro-choice, most wish women never had abortions, and I don't think its possible to find any person on the earth that actually hates children (although they equate not wanting to have children as hating their presence).
II. The practice of Feminism is unbiblical. (Their website, http://www.monstrousregiment.com, states that the film was created with the intention of "admonishing women and men for their role in the unbiblical practice of feminism")
Again, they do not state a case clearly enough to really argue. What is the "feminism" they are talking about? Education of women? Abortion? Women in leadership roles? Women with careers? Single women? Radical feminism? Liberal feminism? Socialist feminism?
They film makes it clear that the Christians involved in the production never accurately researched the history or development of "feminism", and therefore make ignorant generalizations. They interview a few radicals (or former radicals) which happen to fit into their stereotypes then generalize that the other millions of men and women that call themselves feminists would agree.
Granted, most feminists believe in having equal political, social, and cultural rights for women. However, there are many internal debates among feminists, especially about issues such as abortion. How can these filmmakers wage a war against feminist thinking if there isn't a consensus on most issues? I can't even address these arguments because I will not speak for all feminists. I could write full blog posts on every single issue, but only from my own point of view.
III. A woman's only and highest "calling" in life is to be a wife and mother. Her value is only as a homemaker, and women with careers or in any leadership position are abominations.
This was definitely THE overarching theme of the film. All the non-feminist interviewees were married women with multiple children, and used imagery suggesting that the most abhorred position for a women would be alone and/or without children. They referred to the institution of marriage as a protection for women (This was stated without reasoning as a throw-away comment. It was treated as a generally accepted claim, and the thought that marriage could be an equal partnership was not even considered).
Christian women in the film said that when feminists in the 1960s encouraged females to pursue careers they wanted women to abandon their families and destroy society and Christianity. They did not mention that most women just think women should have the choice to pursue a career. It was a reaction to an imaginary "monstrous regiment" that is forcing women into slavery of some kind.
Towards the end of the film, there was a comparison of the number of children totaled among the feminist interviewees and the Christian interviewees (there was never any overlap. No one was interviewed as far as I know that was a Christian and a feminist). Anyway, they said the seven feminists, combined, only totaled 10 children, while the Christian women interviewed had a total of 60 children. This was intended as measuring the "womanliness" or "Godliness" of the Christians in the film.
Therefore, the conclusion was that (1) no woman finds joy in being single, having a job, or being married without children, (2) God would never approve of a single or childless woman, and (3) there is a giant conspiracy among ALL feminists to make everyone miserable and ungodly.
Its hard to restrain my reactions to this relatively short blog post (relative to my ideal response), but I would definitely like to hear other peoples' reactions in the comment section. Has anyone else seen this movie yet? Do you think Christians can be feminists? If so, what should that look like? What is a woman's role according to the Bible? Is there only one godly path for all women?

I have not seen the movie, but I did watch the preview deal that you posted. It looked...crazy. It was made in 2007? It looked really old school, all the Christian women in it had the prairie looking dresses and long hair. Weird.
ReplyDeleteIve been thinking and reading a lot about Christianity/feminism and how the two relate and coexist. I read a book called Why Not Women?, mainly about women in ministry. It's by Loren Cunningham, the YWAM founder and another guy. I really liked it and thought they had good research and foundations for their arguments for women as preachers, evangelists, etc. But reading that is contrasted with things in my classes, especially ministry classes because Biola's seminary is very 'complementarian' - believing that men and women ave different roles which should complement each other. My teacher in one class straight up said that egalitarians, who promote equality for men and women, have to twist Bible veses to support their view. He referenced the 'in Jesus there shall be no man or woman, slave nor free...' and basically dismissed it. It was really frustrating.
I have a hard time with defining feminism, because it has such a negative connotation especially in the Christian world that I shy away from associating myself with that. With the definition of a feminist that you gave, I would say that Christians can be feminists. I'm not sure what it would look like exactly, but I don't think the two exist in opposition to each other.
--Christine (from USP)
I really appreciated your thoughtful, measured response, Katy. I'm not even sure that I'm ready to be so even-handed yet.
ReplyDeleteLots of things you said stood out to me, but I wanted to comment on one: the assumption of the filmmakers that marriage was a protection for women. In fact, the failure of that "ideal" seems to have been one of the most significant motivations for feminist reform in the world. Many of the earliest campaigners for women's rights (before the word "feminist" was even used or anything like a "movement" could be conceived) were interested in property rights and divorce rights. At the time, women were legally considered the property of their fathers or husbands; consequently, they couldn't possess property of their own. Women who were divorced or widowed were often left with no means of sustenance.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that most of the crimes against women happen in the home, perpetrated by these men who are supposedly "protecting" their women. Perhaps the Gunn family would respond that domestic violence is somehow a result of feminism. But I would assert that feminism has been a practical movement, responding to the world and human power relations as they are, not as they should be in some morally perfect future. As long as there are husbands abusing their wives, women need to have rights that empower them to find justice and freedom.
Don't get me wrong--domestic abuse isn't the only reason for feminism or for the fight against gender-based oppression. But your comment about marriage as a protection for women got me to thinking along these lines.