Token women - good or bad?
Well I thought it was a while since we outraged all of the women in the blogosphere and/or emerging church scene while simultaneously plunging the men of the blogosphere and/or emerging church scene into a discussion they can never seem to “win”. Plus there is always a real prospect in these discussions that people who actually agree with each other almost entirely end up in a blood feud over fine interpretations. Bring it on.
The topic for today’s stoush is “Emerging women in leadership and tokenism - good or bad?”
If you are interested in joining the fray, continue reading over the fold.
So, there seem to be a number of facts or opinions which are fairly widely observed but which don’t necessarily fit together neatly:
A. There are currently more men than women in leadership (or visible in leadership) in the emerging missional church.
B. It would be a good thing if the numbers of women and men in leadership (or visible in leadership) in the emerging missional church were more equal.
C. The emerging missional church bears some responsibility (in whatever shape) for encouraging, resourcing and developing women in leadership.
But how do you reconcile A, B and C? How is the emerging missional church to encourage, resource and develop women in leadership without making the endeavour look farcical and condescending?
You see, a simple way to be seen to accomplish C is to include women prominently in all groups, committees, presentations, speaking events, discussion forums and so on. Hence the ongoing search for and highlighting of women emerging bloggers. But it also means that, because of the effect of principle A, you get a relatively small number of women being showcased. Or alternatively, women who have less experience, expertise and knowledge than men are pushed to the fore.
Now the first might not be a problem. After all, on a slightly larger scale it is fair to say that the group of male speakers who are featured and showcased is not a constantly changing kaleidoscope. And if you only have a small group of appropriately qualified women to choose from (or point to) then we can’t just snap our fingers and change that situation.
The real boggle comes when we talk about preferring womens’ voices over mens’ (or a particular woman’s over a particular man’s), even though the particular women involved aren’t the most qualified to talk about a particular issue. Depending on whether we are in favour or against this, we can call this tokenism, or affirmative action or any number of other labels. To save us talking in the abstract, here is a concrete (albeit mostly fictitious) example:
Bill and Jan are married. Bill is a fully trained ordained minister with ministry experience in a range of ministry contexts from house churches, to small struggling churches, to large contemporary worship churches to missional projects. He is the ministry team leader of an established church (MCCC) which is engaging in some missional endeavours which other people in the emerging missional church are interested in and which they might be able to learn something from. Jan has some theological training but is not a minister. She works full time in a secular job. She has significant lay leadership responsibilities at MCCC but on in relation to one area of the ministry of MCCC (ie one group of congregations - the circus workers congregations - and one missional team - the annual circus outreach community performance). Bill and Jan also operate a website (Pointers) which generates a lot of discussion about the emerging missional church (and the church as a whole). Bill and Jan are equally qualified/capable to talk about Pointers. Bill is more qualified/capable of talking about most areas of MCCC. Bill and Jan are equally qualified/capable of talking about some areas of MCCC. Jan is more qualified/capable of talking about very few areas of relevance to the emerging missional church (”experiences of lay leadership” or “dealing with Bill’s ego”, for example)
So, you are the leadership team of a new conference aimed at missional church leaders (”McClarenfy”) both existing and prospective. You are trying to juggle positions A, B and C above and you have the opportunity to invite Bill or Jan (or both) to speak to your conference participants. Bill is more generally qualified, but Jan has the added advantage of no Y chromosome. Who do you invite to speak, and why? It is tokenism to put Jan on the bill program despite the fact that she has less experience and expertise? Or do you tailor a topic for her which is in one of the areas that she is equally able to speak (the circus clown ministry or “Pointers”) or in the areas where she is more qualified than Bill (the lay ministry thing)? Or do you just get Bill to speak and decide that Jan can earn a spot on the bill program if she wants to?
July 21st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Yeah, sorry Toddy - of course I didn’t mean “all men” but rather “some men”, although I think the men that don’t realise “women’s issues” are relevant to them are not confined to the men who won’t address their own issues. I mean seriously, I never cease to be astounded by the fact that as an academic researcher, I work in a really progressive, predominantly left-leaning field, yet workshops on “women” are rarely attended by more than a handful of men. Or that the sermons from a feminist perspective are given by women and men wonder how it relates to them (ie discussions of the loyalty of the women who stayed with Christ). Like blestpickle, I’ve been incredibly moved and blessed by the men who have said these things - I’m so immensely grateful to the numerous strong, wonderful men in my life who love, nurture and respect all of who I am.
And I couldn’t agree more re: fear of the Other killing our churches. We shouldn’t be surprised that this fear is doing such damage - after all, it is the Other that Christ said he came for!
July 21st, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I am sorry for all the damage and suppression us men have caused over the centuries, and I am sorry for what the church has done to go from being a leader in gender equality to actually being behind the times. I do feel like actions speak louder than words however, especially when my words are never carefully considered enough to pass the screeners. My daughters have and will continue to soar, as will my wife, and my colleagues. Even if I have to repeatedly throw them in the air to facilitate it. And anyone who has a problem with that can step outside and I’ll introduce them to a world of pain.
arghgghghghghghg
the rev
July 21st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Thanks for everyone’s comments, & i too was touched by blestpickle’s post, certainly hard to disagree with alot of that stuff.
I gues what i’m trying to say is that my concern (as mentioned by Toddy) is that Men can jump on the feminism bandwagon as a diversion from their own issues. Men almost have a gift for denying men have any issues to talk about at all.
Most women do not have this problem, they are emotionally articulate & have liitle trouble communicating their needs & asking for help from their female peers.
Consider the fact that Prostate Cancer kills a comparably equal amount of men as Breast Cancer kills women, yet there the latter has an enormous whilst Prostate Cancer barely scores a mention.
Consider how many males fail to report crimes against them (like male rape) compared to the same type of crimes reported by women.
Do i think men benefit when women feel their rights are adequately supported & advocated by men? Of course. Secure people are always happier to deal with.
Do i think men should be at the forefront of this before they’ve even begun the painful (& to a male, more frightening than anything else) process of delving into their own shadow darkness? Well, it wouldn’t be useless, but perhaps a little shallow.
Can you not see where I’m coming from?
July 21st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
enormous media presence for Breast Cancer para 3 was supposed to say, sorry!
July 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
whaaaaat was that rev?
reve - re: prostate cancer and rape - maybe it has something to do with the ramifications it can have for masculine identity? and surely women have a role in affirming that?!
July 21st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
It would have to do with masculine identity, yes. Pride is a curse.
And yes, a female counsellor is worth her weight in gold & is irreplacable in certain situations. But God has created a ceratin degree of gender mystery betwen the sexes (the basis of attraction) & because of that, there are some things about men that women will never understand (& vice versa) & i think we were designed this way.
And when you don’t completely understand something, but you still notice an injustice or imbalance, you support those who do understand in any way you can. Pretending you do understand is pretenscious & lacks integrity, don’t you think?
If this were not the case, (the designed mystery) we would all be designed bisexual & able to access both left & right parts of our brains all the time. I am a gay man so this wouldn’t bother me that much, but ummm…..metinks God decided there wouldn’t be enough cross-fertilisation & fertility in that.
July 21st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Can i just say this, before i get shot down over my last post, though….
I have decided lately that as there is a reduced chance of (although not completely absent) a woman abusing her power in an authoritative role i would be more than happy to recieve spiritual oversight from the right type of woman. It would even be more comfortable.
July 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Reve, I didn’t say women could understand everything about men. I think that *any* individual who pretends they completely understand another is being pretentious and lacking in integrity - irrespective of gender.
I have definitely seen women abusing their power in authoritative roles. It just looks differently to when men do it. In fact, I’ve heard people in HR say that it’s harder to pick men being bullies these days, as they’ve dropped the ‘old school’ methods of bullying and now do it ‘more like women’. I have definitely seen women - including those in a position of spiritual leadership - behave in abusive, manipulative ways.
July 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I just checked my email and got my latest Pambazuka. I won’t cut and paste the whole thing, but the second article is by a Kenyan man and well worth a read - go here - http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/current/
Excerpt:
Comment and analysis
Gendering WSF Nairobi 2007
2006-07-20
Onyango Oloo
Despite making some progress towards developing an inclusive process for women within the World Social Forum (WSF) movement, profound problems remain that are likely to manifest themselves in the lead up to the WSF meeting in Nairobi in 2007, says Onyango Oloo, in this paper presented at a public forum on “Gendering the WSF Process”. It’s not a lost battle, however. Oloo suggests that action can still be taken through which men can show solidarity with their women comrades.
……………………….
I think that many of the observations of the forum could be made of the church also - ie.
1. …even while trying to build another world based on principles of participatory democracy and social justice, internal contradictions remain in the WSF. One of the most notable are weaknesses in maintaining gender inclusiveness. The majority of participants in the WSF are women, but most of the presenters on panels are men, continuing the stereotype that men are the producers of knowledge. The raises the question of what the WSF will do to assure more participatory democracy in terms of gender balance? - Marc Becker, April 12, 2006 (http://www.yachana.org/writings/beautyqueens.html)
Comment and analysis
Gendering WSF Nairobi 2007
2006-07-20
Onyango Oloo
Despite making some progress towards developing an inclusive process for women within the World Social Forum (WSF) movement, profound problems remain that are likely to manifest themselves in the lead up to the WSF meeting in Nairobi in 2007, says Onyango Oloo, in this paper presented at a public forum on “Gendering the WSF Process”. It’s not a lost battle, however. Oloo suggests that action can still be taken through which men can show solidarity with their women comrades.
July 21st, 2006 at 2:50 pm
in all honesty the worst abuses of power I have seen in churches I have personally been associated with (not giant structures like the RC church), have predominantly been by women. In the pentecostal tradition the role of women has been very stong since it’s inception with Aime and Catherine. It was these personal experiences that actually made me resist a more inclusive teaching. It wasn’t until I did around a hundred hours of research that I came to my present understanding. Ofcourse now being anarchist I believe that authority is always relational, which solves many problems for both men and women.
the rev
July 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
‘And when you don’t completely understand something, but you still notice an injustice or imbalance, you support those who do understand in any way you can. Pretending you do understand is pretenscious & lacks integrity, don’t you think?’
Yes, I think Reve - nicely said
July 21st, 2006 at 6:24 pm
i’ve been a token young person, and then a token female throughout my church life. it’s been such a good way to teach me to participate and lead - i guess it’s less being token, and more being coached (trying out different forms of leadership alongside more experienced leaders, getting feedback, doing it better next time).
i’m really grateful for the opportunities i’ve been given, and continue to be given.
i do the upfront “expert” speaking thing (in fact, i did it today), but it’s far and away my least favourite method of communication. i find it frustrating that it’s the only method of communication that most conferences allow. the stuff i know doesn’t just doesn’t get communicated best through that kind of forum.
i don’t think that’s specifically gender based… although i’m grateful i belong to a church that believes there’s probably 10 excellent people for each 1 speaking spot, and, given that, says that one of the criteria for selection will be gender balance. i’m grateful because it means i’ve heard the stories and wisdom of women that resonates far more closely to my story.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I really appreciate other ways of communicating, but it is sometimes harder in a larger group setting and the default seems to always be lecture. Can you give some ideas for things that do resonate more with you, and could be considered a more feminine way of doing it? (not that something being more feminine means that all females like it more, or that it is less demanding, or more demanding, or to suggest that women aren’t just as capable of teaching or learning in any way they set their mind to)
I use humour to make me feel less uncomfortable
and if I find if funny and you don’t it’s still humour, its just bad humour.
the rev
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
I’d like to see more ‘talk for 20, q&a for 30′ styled deliveries, rather than the 50min lecture (even with pp!)
July 24th, 2006 at 7:01 am
I’m with you Toddy - I think that is good for men or women. Perhaps it is the post-modern cultural shift? Just to complicate things…
But, discussion and dialogue I learn much more from. Obviously like speaking/preaching it needs to be well done and facilation is a skill learnt and developed. It is one that I think it is under appreciated as a skill.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:27 am
been away from the computer for the weekend, sorry Rev, didn’t see your question.
i agree with Toddy and phil, and i also think that small group interaction is really important - people talking in 2’s or 3’s every 10 minutes or so, even just for a minute. gives them a chance to process something, to say it out loud (for those who need to do that to process stuff). There doesn’t even need to be feedback to the front at that point. (Not giving feedback at every point signals that the person at the front is not the holder of all wisdom)
Lectures, as a learning tool, work for very few people. Particularly if they are lectures that aren’t just imparting information, but are imparting wisdom. Wisdom requires a very different learning environment…
i’ll think of more suggestions, but i have some major deadlines, and need to not be diverted today!
July 24th, 2006 at 9:00 am
thanks Cheryl, and I agree with you too Toddy.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I agree with the above.
Also Rev, I reckon that at any Christian conference/speaking event there’s broadly two types of people (not to generalise or anything!):
1. The ‘newbies’, who will be going because they’re thinking about new things, wanting some stimulation, and/or drawn to a key speaker.
2. The ‘regulars’, who are interested in the speakers, but who would go to the conference regardless of who was speaking - they go to hang out with people during coffee breaks, lunch time etc. Most of the people I know fall into this category rather than the first.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:37 am
I don’t know Bec. I woud not be considered a ‘newbie’ given your clasification and I engage with discussion the most. However, there are times that I do want to hear a speaker.
We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - there is a place for speakers - particularly gifted speakers even for ‘regulars’. It’s just that we need to find other ways that will work alongside the expert up the front.
At the recent forge intensive - I think Daryl Gardiner and John Franke for me epitomised this in different ways. Daryl was very inspirational, story telling style, while John Franke made me think deeply theologically.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Yeah and sometimes this is very difficult, when we included dialogue and discussion in some of Alans lectures it cause some problems. As he developes a topic over the entire year, and some that came only to the second or third intensive start discussing things that have already been covered in the first, so our interns are the ones that suffer. It is hard because we do have to cover certain things, in a certain way, in order to maintain our standing with the bible colleges.
I still haven’t gotten my head around the more feminine styles of presenting, can you explain that to me bec.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Phil, I certainly wasn’t advocating completely getting rid of upfront speakers - it’s just that when I talk to people around me, most of them go to speaking gigs for the same reasons I do - to catch up with people they don’t get to see as often as they’d like. This is kind of because of something the Rev points out - it takes time to develop sophisticated ideas. For me personally, it’s very rare to hear a speaker that rocks my world with a 50 minute talk - in either ‘Christian’ or ‘academic’ circles. Their books might be groundbreaking, but I reckon it’s really hard to say anything spectacular in 50 minutes - at least to an audience that’s been thinking through the issues for quite some time.
Rev, I don’t think you can cater to everyone, and the needs of interns and those that just come for the odd thing here and there are quite different. I think there’s plenty of ways you can incorporate more dialogue and discussion in intensives though - I’ve done numerous courses at various universities where people had differing levels of background, knowledge etc, and the classes were basically a free-for-all discussion time.
Rev - feminist theories coming out of fields like linguistics and politics will say that women, as a general rule, like to contextualise things more, and have a different communication style that is more about engagement and exploration than argument. These are immense generalisations, but they’ve come out of studies that look at the involvement of - well, basically anyone who’s not white, western, male, and tertiary educated!! So these frameworks often explore how for example, indigenous people might be better included into political processes, judicial processes…
I would say that Forge is actually on its way to doing some of this with its emphasis on story telling. It can also be enhanced by playing with physical surrounds - ie. how about having a big circle of chairs with a speaker sitting in the circle, rather than standing up front behind a podium with a microphone? (I know Forge people have done this before, too). Also, incorporating the suggestions above - cutting down the ’speaking time’ and lengthening the Q&A time (that’s always my fave bit anyway).
I have to say that I don’t regard myself as presenting in a particularly feminine way. I’ve done a bit of debating and public speaking, my professional experience is in academia and law - I’ve been trained to speak in ‘male’ ways, and I’m quite comfortable with them. However, for theological reasons I’m committed to finding other ways of speaking - ways that are more inclusive, and that don’t build up icons, so to speak.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
“For me personally, it’s very rare to hear a speaker that rocks my world with a 50 minute talk - in either ‘Christian’ or ‘academic’ circles. Their books might be groundbreaking, but I reckon it’s really hard to say anything spectacular in 50 minutes - at least to an audience that’s been thinking through the issues for quite some time.”
Bec, I think this is where we differ in expectation. I do not look for speakers to ‘rock my world’ or even necessarily be ‘ground breaking’ all the time. I think certainly we will be disappointed if this is what we are looking for and expecting. Rather, I am wanting to hear about how the themes of what we are talking about are articulated and intererwoven into their life stories and the stories of other people’s life.
To be clear, I am not saying that it wouldn’t be great for a speaker to ‘rock my world’ but I still think that that speakers have a role even if they don’t.
To use the example of Daryl Gardiner and John Franke again; neither ‘rocked my world’ nor did they say anything that was particularly ‘ground breaking’ for me. But I found both for different reasons, (as they are very different types of speakers) worthwhile. If they were advertised again, I would go.
July 24th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Phil, I wasn’t advocating getting rid of speakers. I just think that there are other ways of sharing ideas that might actually be more fulfilling, at least on occasion.
The fact that you mention story telling suggests to me that we’re acutally on about the same thing (see my above post!). When I said that people I know go to hang out together rather than hear speakers, I wasn’t saying that I/we/they aren’t interested in the speakers - I was merely trying to point out that it’s the community aspects of gatherings that are perhaps more important to a lot of us. And this story telling stuff is part of that. I think that upfront, speaking behind a podium tends to limit, rather than enhance, that experience of community.
This connects with something else I’ve thought a lot about in the last few years - the physical environment we have these gatherings in and how it marginalises people. There’s a friend of mine who’d really enjoy lots of the Forge gatherings, but I’d never invite her because she’d get sick. She simply can’t sit in a chair for 40 minutes and listen to someone speak. She could perhaps sit in a couch, or she could get up and move around, but that’s quite embarassing for her in a formal speaking environment. There’s several people at my church like that.
I know this is shifting the discussion a bit, but it is related - it’s about how we create more inclusive spaces…
July 24th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
At the last six intensives we have had couches, and at most of the postcards we have couches. We also have an intern that has had recent back surgery and she didn’t seem to have a problem getting up and standing from time to time, and even walking around a bit when she needed to.
It sometimes gets very tiring listening to people talk about what we should do because for ever one person saying one thing there are ten people saying something else. We have been chastised for being:
Too intelectual
Too much discussion I paid money to hear from experts not other punters at my table
Not intelectual enough I want to be challenged
Too many stories
Not enough stories
Not enough women presenters
People not talking about the subject enough
not enough content
too much content
not enough time to relate, and bond with other participants
too much time for social interaction
content too liberal
Content to conservative
too many big words
etc.
I think FORGE may be trying to be too many things to too many people in too few arenas. Maybe we should just focus on the interns for the intensives, and offer postcards if and when we feel we have something to share.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
my comments weren’t about forge, they were about conferences in general…
July 24th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Is that directed at me, Rev?
July 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
My comments weren’t about Forge either.
In fact I believe you’ll find numerous positive comments from me about Forge in this thread.
Rev, that’s great if you had someone who’d recently had a broken back. But the fact that you’d even make that comment highlights exactly what chronically ill people have to put up with all the time: you effectively said “well, we had A along, and if A can do it, then B can too”. Well, maybe B can’t.
July 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Guys, I wasn’t directing any of that to you. And Bec, I was merely pointing out that it is acceptable for people to do what they need to do in order to be able to come along. We also have cd’s and dvd’s of everything so people can listen at home.
And I hardly see how my response to your statement highlights anything, the fact is chroncially ill people will have a hard time anywhere. We will do everything we can to help anyone who asks, but we cannot plan for everything. We cannot have beds, and nurses available either, it hardly means we do not care about those needing constant care. That was a bit ridiculous if you ask me.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
I was certainly not asking Forge to become a hospital. I was merely thinking - again - that Christian gatherings can be very physically uncomfortable places, not only for women, but for other people too.
July 24th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
no bec, you went further than that, you said my statement “highlights exactly what chronically ill people have to put up with all the time: you effectively said “well, we had A along, and if A can do it, then B can too”. Well, maybe B can’t.”
I was pointing out that your friend would find a couch at our events, and would be welcome to stand up and walk around whenever necessary. Using our intern as an example that this has been done in the past. I was pointing out nothing more than that. I also would venture to guess that we would bend over backwards in any number of ways if someone were to let us know that someone would like to come but needed special arrangements.
the rev