Worth Reading This Week: March 1st

This week had a lot, so it took me a little while to distill my favorite posts down to these three. First, Flavia Dzodan returned to blogging at Tiger Beatdown after a short absence with a heart-wrenching openness about struggles in her life - living as an undocumented immigrant, losing a pregnancy while in State custody, State surgeons screwing up surgery and making her sterile, and all the pain that comes with not being able to talk about it in relationship to her feminist work because she would be called "too emotionally close" and "irrationally involved":

I am often accused of being “resentful” or “racist against white people” or “irrationally angry”. I pity those who have never experienced the pain of having the thing they wanted most taken away while they are capable of calling someone “resentful”. My husband often tells me “but they don’t know what drives you”. I contend that even if they knew, they would still demand more proof, more suffering, more pain in order to believe. And that’s the reason I never spoke publicly about my past an an undocumented immigrant before. I always thought some people would try and use it against me to invalidate everything I stand for. “oh, but you are emotionally involved!” “you cannot possibly be objective about it” “you are too subjective about this to have an impartial opinion”. So, I remained silent in spite of the fact that I wholeheartedly believe that the personal is indeed political. I didn’t speak because I was afraid to victimize myself and, in the process, render everything I write about European Union policies suspect. I was also ashamed. Undocumented immigrants are “the scourge of society”, “they broke the law”, “they are illegal”. But since I haven’t been able to write anything for the past four months anyway, I have nothing to lose. Now it’s time for this story, my story to come to light. I might not be impartial or objective or “uncompromised” but neither is a State that renders people sterile because of immigration status or a State that sees fit to allow seventeen thousand people to die for having the nerve to immigrate without the correct paperwork.

Over on Black Girl Dangerous, Mia McKenzie wrote a response to the Onion's vile tweet, talking about The Thing About Being a Little Black Girl:

The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that even when you are the youngest person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award, many people will use the occasion not to hold you up for all of the amazing things you obviously are, but to tear you down for the ways you don't look like them, the ways your name isn't their kind of right, the ways you don't remind them of themselves, the ways you are not blonde or blue-eyed, as if those things could possibly matter when set against the otherwordly talent and beauty and brilliance you possess.

The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that you come into it already expected to be less than you almost certainly are, the genius and radiant darkness you possess already set up to be overlooked, dismissed or erased by almost everyone you will ever meet.

The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that even when you are everything, some people will want you to be nothing. They will look at you through the nothing-colored glasses they will put on every time you enter a room. And the bigness of you, the outstandingness, the giftedness, will be invisible to them.

And Feminisms Fest was this week as well, highlighting within the evangelical blogging sphere what feminism means and why its needed within the church. I didn't participate because I didn't have the time (way too much writing on my plate at the moment!), but I was excited to read what I could of the posts this series produced. I had trouble picking just one, but one of my favorites appeared last night, written by my dear friend, Dani Kelley. She hits the nail on the head for why feminism within the church is important and for why it's often hard for Christians feminists to be in church (something with which I identify strongly):

It’s been outside the church, among these liberals and feminists, that I’ve learned that it is okay for me to exist.

It’s been outside the church, among these liberals and feminists, that I’ve been allowed to grieve when I hurt, rage when I’m angry, dance when I’m happy, and experience human emotions fully for the first time in my life.

It’s been outside the church, among these liberals and feminists, that I’ve truly heard for the first time that there is nothing I can think, say, do, or wear that can possibly justify sexual, physical, spiritual, or emotional violence against me.

It’s been outside the church, among these liberals and feminists, that I’ve been told that my voice is important.

It’s been outside the church, among these liberals and feminists, that I’ve been told that my entire worth isn’t located in my vagina or connected to any activity that happens therein.

It’s been outside the church, among these wonderful, strong, brave, compassionate liberals and feminists, that I have found safety. Understanding. Friendship. Love.

Go. Read. Learn. And don't forget to celebrate church outside the walls, on a Friday night having wine with friends or a Sunday morning sleeping in. We learn from each other and from telling stories, not from keeping quiet and pretending everything's okay.

Worth Reading This Week

This week, Fred Clark has been killing it at his Patheos blog Slacktivist. First, in “16 tons of brick without straw,” he tells us why companies challenging the federal government on birth control is a reversion to a time before labor laws changed how we view employee wages:

We should step back for a moment here to recognize the absurdity of CT’s attempt to make this a “religious” claim, because their argument is simply indefensible on Christian religious grounds. The religion in question here is evangelical Christianity  — Bible Christianity. And the Christian Bible is resoundingly, unambiguously opposed to the exploitation of workers. This is not a gray area. From Laban’s swindling of the swindler Jacob, to Pharaoh’s oppressive edict to make bricks without straw (the original company scrip system), throughout the law and the prophets and the parables of the Gospels, from the epistle of James to the beastly monopoly of John’s apocalypse, the Bible is — start-to-finish and all the way through — vehemently opposed to the exploitation of workers. CT’s argument is not religiously permissible, let alone religiously supported. Their Bible forbids their argument.

But as biblically and religiously indefensible as CT’s position is, I don’t want to get sidetracked into a sectarian religious argument. First because sectarian religious arguments cannot be legally compelling. And second because, as CT sadly demonstrates, such arguments appear to be so infinitely elastic as to be meaningless. If the Bible can be read to approve of the denial of wages, then the Bible can be read to approve of anything. Why bother citing scripture to those who think the Bible allows and endorses such exploitation? Once “religion” has been redefined to endorse such views, it can no longer offer much in the way of a common language for moral argument.

Then, in “Rules For Christian Sex and Rules about Rules,” he breaks down the difference between the evangelical teaching about sex and the practice of healthy sexual ethics (namely that the hardline rules produced in the former make it nearly impossible to develop the latter).

My response to such accusations is always the same: I’m not saying anything goes, I simply want you to treat your “biblical rules about sex” exactly the same way that you’re already treating the biblical rules about money. I want you to take the exact same hermeneutical approach that you are already taking to every biblical teaching on wealth and possessions and apply that to biblical teaching on sexuality. Then treat both sets of teachings — and other people — with more respect than your current practice seems to do with regard to either subject.

My point here, though, is not to argue about the substance of the CRS/RCS, but to note that this rule-based approach is fundamentally misguided — that rules are just about the worst possible method for getting people to obey the rules.

Asserting  and reasserting a list of rules rather than offering a functional sexual ethics won’t ever produce ethical behavior. All you’ll get from asserting a list of rules is a long list of people who break them.

And my last piece worth reading is actually from last week, but it’s just too good not to share. My friend Dani Kelley wrote in “The Body I Have” about learning to accept herself and her body and breaking from a culture that had declared open season on her because she a woman who happens to be larger than a Victoria’s Secret model.

But I do know that during this hours-long conversation, I kept adding things to my mental of list of Things To Do To Be A Good Christian Girl — a list that was comprised almost entirely of Things To Do To Be Pure, which looked a lot like Things To Do To Be Silent And Invisible.

And my quiet panic kept growing and growing, because I wanted so desperately to not be a stumbling block, but it was starting to sound like having long hair, breasts, and hips was stumbling block enough. I thought of my outrageously curly hair that I kept long out of personal religious duty. I thought of my large and endowed body. And my heart sank.

*I* was a stumbling block. *I* was impure — by simple inescapable virtue of being unable to hide the body I had.

So what have you been reading this week?