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 24th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I also wonder why just women for tokenism. We have almost no black presenters in the emerging church events, I haven’t seen a disabled person present, or any pacific Islanders. Even though I agree there is an unequal representation, if we accept a tokenism then we get into all kinds of problems.
I like the approach of making things a bit more natural for female presenters, opening the options for presenting in whatever style is prefered. For making sure we pour just as much time and effort into equipping and encouraging our female leaders. And making sure we teach an inclusive and equal theology and ecclessiology, and allowing things to right themselves.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Rev, I felt that you responded insensitively.
If you read my earlier comments, you will see that I am not just talking about women.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
you usually do feel that way it seems
my last post wasn’t talking to you.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
If I was not such a sensitive new age guy I would say perhaps its because men tend to address the problem with a solution to fix it, and women just want some empathy, but that would be a gross generalization that I in my evolved state would never make.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Rev, I thought #54 was insensitive. And after reading your most recent posts, I can’t at all imagine why on earth I might have misread that post.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Bec I am quite aware which post you thought was insensitive. Again, it appears I am just incurably so.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Rev!! It wasn’t meant to start a fight!! It was a comment about how you reacted to my comment about a friend who is chronically ill. I’m sorry if I should have considered my words better. I am pretty affirming of you here, on your own blog, on email etc etc - I certainly don’t think you are incurably ANYTHING. You’re among friends here - neither I nor anyone else (so far as I know!) is out to get you.
Now, in all seriousness, and without wanting to start a fight, I have tried to raise before the issue of gender inclusive language, and was shot down in flames. Yet I think that’s a really easy way to make a significant difference to the lives of women - it communicates a more inclusive and equal theology and ecclesiology.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
oh mannn…that’s not meant to be as obnoxious as it might come across!
I’m seriously just saying that making a concerted effort re: language makes a big different to many women, and it also challenges people who haven’t thought about things before to do so. You’d be surprised how many interesting (read: heated) conversations start when you use the word “Creator” instead of “Father”.
July 24th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
bec,
your recollections of that arguement are much different than mine.
I was not in any way insensitive to your friend, you read that into my response. My response said simply that it was fine to stand up and walk around at FORGE, and we try to have couches as well as tables and chairs. If anything I was trying to point out that FORGE tries to allow a place where everyone can be comfortable.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
bec and rev…at it again…Dan this was a set up wasn’t it?
July 24th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
You don’t understand Greg, Bec is my biggest fan.
the rev
July 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
she produces cool air? wonderful! I like that! (as opposed to people who produce hot air, I guess)
July 24th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
ahahahahah
July 25th, 2006 at 9:22 am
*confused*
*cough* anyway, back to the thread…
Rev, why do you think it is you don’t have those other groups of people you mentioned present?
July 25th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Actually I was saying something very similar to this the other day when chatting to Phil (though absent the value judgments). The Mars/Venus divide (for those that are familiar with the terminology) seems to be in play sometimes. One of the “gender” differences which John Gray talks about is that Martians want to do the Mr Fixit role, whereas Venusians want to talk about things and talk about concerns to express themselves and be validated in those feelings.
Rev has given an example above where he says that women “just” want empathy, suggesting that the talking about it thing is less valuable than finding a solution. I think that there is a bit of this dynamic in the discussion - people talking at cross purposes and pissing each other off while both have the best intentions.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:17 am
I would be devestated if Forge only concentrated on interns for intensives -sure you can’t be all things for all people (no matter how well Paul seems to think he did it!) - but don;t restrict the audience…please…
It would seem to me that from what I experienced of the Sydney Forge intensive, presentation styles are pretty much left to the presenter. Is this a fair observation Rev?
Dan I see this as being more of an example of how the different needs of men and women are reflected in the way they share information with one another. I don;t think te point was that one is more or less valuable than the other. It may have seemed that one was being placed as better than the other -but for [some] men [obviously not all] I think it is fair to say that fixing is more important than talking about.
I liked Rev’s questions about why not token aboriginals or token hairy backed bald fat men (that was my inclusion - not rev’s) - Tokenism sucks and is disrespectful of both men and women.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Greg, I guess my point about the difference in styles is not that I was criticising the rev. In fact, I was saying that I think that the viewpoint he cheekily expressed is one which is natural for some people (a lot of whom are men). I don’t think it is a question of saying which is more important, fixing or understanding. I think that this is both a problem to be fixed and for some women (and men) a wound to be healed.
My point was to make an observation on the differences in the way that people talk about things which leads to frustration on both “sides” of the fence. One person comes out of the conversation saying “those women just want to whinge about things and aren’t valuing all the things we are doing to fix things”. The other person comes out of it saying “those men don’t value my feelings about these things - all they want to do is make the problem go away”.
In my view there is not a better or a worse position here, just that each side has a different purpose in the discussion which means that neither of them feel that the conversation is productive. Just my 2c.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:54 am
No Dan, I was saying that fixing it is better and that women just want to whinge about everything and feel heard
I did not suggest that one is better, but rather that my view was “this is a problem, I recognize it, and I want to make sure it is fixed if at all possible” Now my question is not whether I was right or wrong in this, but rather why is this insensitive? Isn’t it my stereotypical way of being sensitive? And why isn’t the male response sensitive?
Greg,
We have tried very hard to tell the speakers to engage in discussion, to make room for questions, to try different things and techniques. However, for the most part they do what they want.
If we made the intensive interns and accrediting students only, then we could put more effort into open events rather trying to do both at the same time, and winding up frustrating everyone.
Bec,
We don’t know any that are qualified presenters.
the rev
July 25th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Rev, like you, I am actually a ‘fix it’ person. But sometimes I’m the cause of the problem, and not the one wounded. In such situations I think it’s often best for me to sit back, shut up, and listen. Which isn’t always easy for me, being a ‘fix it’ person. Part of the healing process - and therefore the process of fixing - is often just to listen. It is insensitive to charge on ahead assuming that you’ve heard all there is to be said. It can be insensitive to respond to one person’s story with “oh yeah, I know a similar story”. I am painfully aware of how often I do this, and this is what you did in the post that upset me. I interpreted it as being “well, B can manage it, so why can’t A?”. I know that in my efforts to be empathetic, I often respond to someone’s story by relaying one of my own, and I have been told on numerous occasions that this can come across as being unsympathetic.
If someone is hurting, we don’t get to dictate their healing process. We are there to listen and respond. And if we attempt to respond before we are invited to - if we attempt to jump straight into ‘fix it’ mode rather than be patient and sit in ‘listening’ mode for quite some time - we risk being insensitive.
On the other issue - you don’t know any that are qualified presenters? Why not? They must be out there. Forge actually has very extensive networks, why is it that there aren’t any ‘disabled people’ or ‘Pacific Islanders’ in those networks?
July 25th, 2006 at 11:50 am
BTW, I can think of several indigenous men who are immensely over qualified to speak at a Forge gig, and one Fijian.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Bec, I wasn’t talking to a hurt person, I was talking to you. Now I can’t for the life of me understand why you need to take offense for someone else, when I wasn’t addressing them, perhaps you assume I would speak to them in the same way, but that is an assumption.
As to the others, the reality is we only like hip innercity males.
the rev
July 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Rev, this one’s just gonna go around in circles. I took offence to it because some of my closest friends are chronically ill, and while the consequences of that are nowhere near as immense for me as they are for them, it has and does have an impact on my life. I get angry on their behalf.
Re: hip inner city males - I was asking a serious question, although I was raising it as something to ponder rather than necessarily expecting an answer. And at least the people mentioned above would certainly qualify as a hip innercity male.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
So, which do you like? Hip people, innercity dwellers or males?
Oh, do you mind if I call you by your 1st name, ‘The’?)
The ‘healing/hurting stuff being discussed atm is one of particular interest. Being a fix-it person (like Louis from Sesame St!) doesn’t simply mean fixing it your way, or fixing it the fastest way, or fixing it the way you fixed it before - that’s how you fix cars and stereos and cats!
With people, you need to ‘fix’ their problem in the best way. This will usually (note - nearly alway!) be by taking the time and patience to draw them to the answer and having them walk away from issue quite convinced that they ‘fixed it’ themselves.
Re Token Women - as we’re talking about speaking/delivery styles etc, it’s probably also worth asking - ‘how effective is the current ‘male’ style of ’stand & deliver’? If we don’t know any other way, then we’re not likely to look for anyone except those who feel like what they have to say is SO important that they need to be uninerruptable for half and hour.
As someone who’s done some ‘pinch-hitting’ preaching, it’s really weird to be making a point, and having no one say ‘But…’ at you.
But…
July 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I seriously think that question is worth considering for all of us, btw.
If I looked around my faith community and saw people who were only white, or only tertiary-educated, or only from a certain socio-economic background, or tended to dress a particular way, or have certain politics, or like a particular music, that would lead me to ask two questions (in no particular order): (i) why is this so? (ii) is this a good thing or not?
My answer to (ii) is revealed in the fact that I really like what Marcus Curnow has to say about the Economy of God (and he draws on other people I think are pretty cool, like Wendell Berry and Ched Myers). I think that, at the surface level at least, mission in the West has often focused on culture, and that can actually hamper the formation of communities of diversity. Of course, like the Rev points out, it’s impossible to be all things to all people, but we should be trying to be more things to more people.
Of course, it can be nice to be around people like you, especially if you often feel on the outer or on the margins. I really like hanging out with certain groups of friends because of our common experiences. But for me, a community of faith is different to that…there will be people I have much in common with, but there will also be those who I really struggle to live with, and share nothing with other than our confession that Jesus is Lord….and heck, even that will mean different things to us!
So - if tokenism goes some way towards building this diversity, then I have no problem with it. Like Cheryl, I’ve personally benefited from this tokenism, as I’m regularly the token young woman. I’ve also seen others benefit from it too (both inside and outside the church). It’s not an ideal situation, and hopefully at some point it is no longer necessary - but it’s not all bad.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
hey Bec, if your sick male friends had hip-related problems, they could almost qualify! (sorry - bad taste, but I let my self-control go for a minute)
Oh ‘The’ - I think Bec took offence because not only are the chronically unwell people her friends, but her background is in law - she’s an advocate! So yes, Bec took it personally when it wasn’t directed at her, but it’s what she does - it’s her calling. (Bec - quick - say something! I’m starting to rescue, and I need to stop!)
July 25th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Toddy…”how effective is the current ‘male’ style of ’stand & deliver’? If we don’t know any other way, then we’re not likely to look for anyone except those who feel like what they have to say is SO important that they need to be uninerruptable for half and hour.”
I agree. Perhaps one of the reasons I don’t particularly enjoy the ’stand and deliver’ style of teaching is because it doesn’t make the most of my learning style. I am very much a person who learns by engaging, doing, nutting through things myself, working in teams… I am a complete extrovert in that sense…if I’m struggling with a legal issue at work I’ll go and talk it through with someone, and often it’s just a monologue - the answer’s already in my head, I just didn’t realise it. At academic conferences I always enjoyed the “break out into groups and discuss” presentations the most - sitting listening to someone is ok, but I’ll take copious notes and then go away and discuss them with someone later.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
LOL…Toddy, I hadn’t thought about it like that before (the advocacy bit) but you’re probably spot on.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
oh…re my post at #86…the ’stand and deliver’ is also my WORST speaking style. I don’t enjoy doing it, and I don’t think I’m any good at it. But get me in a conversation about something I’m passionate about, and I’ll kick-a.
Maybe that’s why I like posting on blogs and have little inclination to have a personal one of my own (even the personal one I have is an advocacy tool, and I plan on building a team of contributors!)
July 25th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
In my head, I am a gun preacher - the reality often falls short of my imaginings!
When you were talking about tokenism not being all bad - I find the whole thing to be very patronizing. It becomes about ‘us’ letting ‘you’ but ‘we’ are the real ones, but know that ‘you’ want to have a go, and ‘you’ probably won’t be very good, but ‘we’ will tolerate it because ‘you’ are cute when you try to be like ‘us’. For me it works - I’ve got the right tackle! However, that doesn’t make it right.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Toddy, of course tokenism is not the ideal. However it’s a start.
I’m involved in a free community meal. Often people start volunteering because they feel that they are “needed” by people who live on the streets. The reality is quite different, and it might take them some time to discover that. Their original motivations are far from ideal, but those motivations get them started on a journey that takes them elsewhere.
Similarly, tokenism is essentially an admission that something’s not right, and of course it can be patronising. But just personally, I’d rather be patronised than excluded. I see tokenism is the beginning of a journey to a more inclusive place.