Maybe it’s age? Maybe it’s maturity? Maybe it’s changing contextual circumstances? Maybe it’s disillusionment? Maybe it’s all these things combined? Whatever it is, I now find myself less and less willing to let moments of Christian misogyny pass without identifying it for what it is.
Thank you for challenging this. I hope the author of the original article reads your response, and these comments. If he does, I'd like him to consider two things.
1) If pregnancy/childbirth/being a 'mom' is the main (or only) difference between women and men, where does that leave someone like me, who was never able to have children? Am I some kind of 'gender neutral being'?
2) Is he aware that contraception and the pill are not interchangeable terms? Does he realise that the contraceptive pill is commonly used to treat medical conditions, including in women who will never be able to have children.
A few years ago, I sat through a sermon where the preacher claimed that the ONLY reason a single woman would go on the pill was because she was promiscuous. At that point, I was single, celibate and taking the pill for medical reasons. I also knew I could never have children.
If you can't be bothered to learn even the most basic facts about how the pill can be used, you shouldn't be writing or speaking about it.
Thank you so much for adding the postscript! You've articulated in something I've been frustrated and saddened by in lots of discussions on various matters relating to women and men, particularly in the church. I'm not sure we actually have deep, rich enough answers to the questions 'What is a man? What is a woman?' to address the ethical concerns we're facing... I'd love to hear more from you on this, as the work you've done on singleness has been so helpful already. Have there been things you've read or questions you've considered that have particularly shaped your thinking on this? I'll keep reading what you're writing - you've been a great encouragement to me, Dani!
You are a stronger woman than me for not just groaning and clicking "X" as soon as it became clear the author thought the Pill and contraception were interchangeable.
One thing that occurs to me is how much more vulnerable a woman is to motherhood - in the sense that far greater risks (especially historically) and then you have an infant who is incredibly needy. Breastfeeding is something only mums can do and for a period a baby needs all of its needs met and typically by it’s mum. This is different to the role of father. Pre the pill the woman was the one left bearing the consequence of sex in the form of an unplanned pregnancy while the man could sail off never to be heard from again. In an age without government social security etc this left a woman vulnerable - this sets the impact of the pill quite apart from condoms.
My understanding is that Mary herringtons work is mostly about the pill - I haven’t studied her closely but have read a lot of her articles and listened to numerous articles with her and was surprised by your comment that she was talking about contraception rather than the pill.
Jordan Peterson has some interesting comments on Thai and the needy ness of the human infant etc.
Thanks Dani, when I first read this article about the Pill I was annoyed too. Like you, my gut feeling was that it measured a woman’s worth primarily according to our reproductive ability. This is such a limited and unfortunately common way for conservative Protestant men to view us.
Have you read "Genesis of Gender" by Abigail Favale? I think it may help clear some of this up. She uses Thomistic categories to show how sexual differentation is about differing potentiality. But you are right - it must flow both ways. The potential to be a mother is incredibly and beautifully specific, but so is the potential for Fatherhood. To obscure either through contraception IS to blur the lines of sexual differentation, which seems to be the authors point, albeit while forgetting mans ability to obscure contraception has been culturally vouge for... ever?
Thank you for challenging this. I hope the author of the original article reads your response, and these comments. If he does, I'd like him to consider two things.
1) If pregnancy/childbirth/being a 'mom' is the main (or only) difference between women and men, where does that leave someone like me, who was never able to have children? Am I some kind of 'gender neutral being'?
2) Is he aware that contraception and the pill are not interchangeable terms? Does he realise that the contraceptive pill is commonly used to treat medical conditions, including in women who will never be able to have children.
A few years ago, I sat through a sermon where the preacher claimed that the ONLY reason a single woman would go on the pill was because she was promiscuous. At that point, I was single, celibate and taking the pill for medical reasons. I also knew I could never have children.
If you can't be bothered to learn even the most basic facts about how the pill can be used, you shouldn't be writing or speaking about it.
Thank you so much for adding the postscript! You've articulated in something I've been frustrated and saddened by in lots of discussions on various matters relating to women and men, particularly in the church. I'm not sure we actually have deep, rich enough answers to the questions 'What is a man? What is a woman?' to address the ethical concerns we're facing... I'd love to hear more from you on this, as the work you've done on singleness has been so helpful already. Have there been things you've read or questions you've considered that have particularly shaped your thinking on this? I'll keep reading what you're writing - you've been a great encouragement to me, Dani!
You are a stronger woman than me for not just groaning and clicking "X" as soon as it became clear the author thought the Pill and contraception were interchangeable.
One thing that occurs to me is how much more vulnerable a woman is to motherhood - in the sense that far greater risks (especially historically) and then you have an infant who is incredibly needy. Breastfeeding is something only mums can do and for a period a baby needs all of its needs met and typically by it’s mum. This is different to the role of father. Pre the pill the woman was the one left bearing the consequence of sex in the form of an unplanned pregnancy while the man could sail off never to be heard from again. In an age without government social security etc this left a woman vulnerable - this sets the impact of the pill quite apart from condoms.
My understanding is that Mary herringtons work is mostly about the pill - I haven’t studied her closely but have read a lot of her articles and listened to numerous articles with her and was surprised by your comment that she was talking about contraception rather than the pill.
Jordan Peterson has some interesting comments on Thai and the needy ness of the human infant etc.
Thanks Dani, when I first read this article about the Pill I was annoyed too. Like you, my gut feeling was that it measured a woman’s worth primarily according to our reproductive ability. This is such a limited and unfortunately common way for conservative Protestant men to view us.
Have you read "Genesis of Gender" by Abigail Favale? I think it may help clear some of this up. She uses Thomistic categories to show how sexual differentation is about differing potentiality. But you are right - it must flow both ways. The potential to be a mother is incredibly and beautifully specific, but so is the potential for Fatherhood. To obscure either through contraception IS to blur the lines of sexual differentation, which seems to be the authors point, albeit while forgetting mans ability to obscure contraception has been culturally vouge for... ever?
Well said.