I'm reading The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison Barr (finally), and I'm on Chapter Two and I'm so fucking mad. I'm fully on board with what she's saying. I'm mad at patriarchy. A lot of the arguments are familiar to me (I've been egalitarian for years), but the one that's standing out to me and making me rage at the way the church patriarchy has sanitised and obfuscated things, is learning how dang GENDER TRANSGRESSIVE women in the early church were. "One more piece of evidence that convinces me that the household codes should be read as resistance narratives to Roman patriarchy is how early Christians were perceived by the Roman world: as "gender deviants". . . . Not only did early Christians place women in leadership roles; they meet together on equal footing—men, women, children, and slaves—in the privacy of the home, a traditional female space. Christianity was deviant and immoral because it was perceived as undermining the ideals of Roman masculinity." Early Christianity was QUEER. It was all about breaking down gender norms of Roman society. Like Paul said "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And I'm so mad that we haven't been taught that.

can anyone recommend any Christian blogs that aren’t trad heavy? im trying to put more positive influence on my dashboard and i would love to discuss theology and and the church and feminism within christianity with people who both agree and disagree with me

thank you <3

i'll be real, i always hated it whenever media tries to "critique" Christianity while portraying all Christians as bigoted, misogynistic and irredeemable. its why it matters a lot to me that my own angels have some nuances to them.

Sera is very puritanical and obsessed with showing her devotion to God, but she's still a caring and well-meaning angel.

Maybe the problem with Christian fiction is that it's non-denominational. People are just "Christian", with no effort put into showing what practicing that religion looks like for them specifically. No indication that there are other Christians who could have different beliefs. No wrestling with differing ideas and the struggle of how one should live out their Christian faith. And that makes it unrealistic and unrelatable.

this sunday, it was dissapointing to see how easy it was for the boys to run around and get their energy out outside, but for the little toddler girls in impractical frilly puffy dresses and impractical shoes, it's an obstacle for their play.

the girls', clothes are made to be seen in as opposed to being made to be worn, unlike the boys which are still nice for easter but they dont have to trip over the edge of a skirt or dress, or have their shoes fall off or pinch their toes when running, they can move and play freely.

it's a problem too cuz when toddlers don't get that energy out, they get irritable and pitch fits, so then the boys look like easy kids, and the girls difficult. let the girls run around!

female subjugation starts from birth. these girls are praised for being beautiful in their dresses, while also learning they cannot play in them. this correlation will not be lost on them especially as they grow up. "If i want positive attention from the important people in my life (like my congregation), this is what i do." the whole "beauty is pain" narrative, while not incorrect, is often viewed as normal and a justified fact of life, like "beauty IS pain and thats just how it is! oh the things us women go through to look pretty haha!". stop teaching girls that their beauty is WORTH pain, because it's not! they should never sacrifice to look attractive.

if half the congression can dress both formal and practical, so can the other half. don't handcuff little girls to femininity at the cost of their happiness and energy and play.

how about the men who are apparently weak enough to "stumble" when seeing an underage girl's developing breasts are just not fit for Christian heaven and by constantly accomodating them, you are actually getting in the way of God's plan to send only the righteous to heaven? Because a guy who puts his own comfort over the safety of another person isn't that righteous after all and won't get into heaven either way.

(I don't really believe in Christianity btw, I am just trying to follow the argument of not cause men to "stumble" instead of teaching them how to be a righteous person. in my opinion, the latter would get them into heaven at a much higher rate than just making girls vulnerable to car accidents)

another example of how being popular in feminist online circles does not make someone a feminist by default. once again not much the fault of the community that called her out on her lesbophobia months ago for "driving her away" from feminism, but another symptom of a bigotry rabbit hole she was already slowly falling into

And - to forced birthers - this scenario makes sense.

It was just a phase!

Graphic with the phases of the moon in a night sky. Text reads, 'being religious was a phase.'

wow what a great guy I'm sure he means everything he says when he talks about how much he supports human rights

This weekend about 2 billion people will celebrate Christmas across the world, and the birth of their religion in Palestine. Today the only remaining 700 Christians, the descendants of the first followers of Christ, are being wiped out in Gaza and their churches bombed to pieces. [@/ Hanine09 on X. 12/23/23.]

Something I've been thinking about lately: In conversations about being intentionally child-free, I see a lot of people talk about how much they resent constantly being told that they'll change their minds someday. And yeah, that sucks. When you tell someone that they'll regret their choices or go back on them someday, you're telling them you don't trust them to make their own decisions. And that's a dick move.

But what I see left out of a lot of these conversations is the fact that some people do change their minds about kids, and that is also okay.

People change. Our priorities and our values change. Someone identifying as child-free at 20 and then realizing at 30 that they actually do want to be a parent doesn't invalidate other people's decision not to have kids. It doesn't even invalidate that person's previous decision. They're growing. They're changing, and that's okay. Healthy even.

When I was 18, I felt very strongly that I would never marry and never have children. For me, this was a reaction to growing up in a religious environment where women were second-class citizens, and what little autonomy/independence single women had immediately went away when they got married. And once you had kids? Well, once you had kids, your personal life was officially over and your identity now started and ended with being so-and-so's mother.

If your only model of marriage and parenthood is a nuclear family where the husband is in charge and makes all of the decisions while his wife does all of the housework and childcare and not much else, OF COURSE you wouldn't want to get married or have kids! My thought process at 18 was basically, "Well, I want to have my own money and make my own choices and have an identity outside of being a mom, so clearly the family life isn't for me."

I'm 25 now. I'm married. My husband and I both kept our own last names, and we maintain separate bank accounts. I have a job that I'm good at, and a lot of people know me from my work. I still have my own money, make my own choices, and have my own identity. None of that went away when I got married. All that's changed is that I have a partner and best friend that I decided to do life with, and we had a ceremony and signed a piece of paper to make it official. We're not quite at the having kids stage yet, but it is something we both want someday.

Me wanting marriage and kids now doesn't invalidate my decision at 18. When I was 18, focusing on my education and career was absolutely the right choice for me. I needed to be able to focus on myself without considering how it would affect a spouse or kids. Eventually, I realized marriage and parenthood can look a lot of different ways. I realized I can decide what they look like for me. I don't have to follow the model I grew up with. And I realized I do want raising kids to be part of my life, just in a way that looks different from what others might expect.

This is a process a lot of people go through, especially women and femmes. If you're in the middle of it right now, just know that you're allowed to change.

And of course, a lot of people don't change their minds. A lot of people who identify as child-free at 20 still don't want kids at 30, 40, or 50. I've met people in their 80s and 90s who never had kids and don't regret that decision. My point here is that some people changing their minds about something doesn't mean it's not a good option for other people.

(And, let's be real, unfortunately a lot of people go the other way: they think they want kids until they have them. That's way more complicated because now there's a whole human person involved who is dependent on them for care and this definitely deserves its own post, but the best advice I can give is if you're young, you need to give yourself time to figure out what you want before committing to anything.)

ok i will stop reblogging that post its just crazy that there is still a meninist community on tumblr and sometimes my posts breach containment and venture into the most painfully unfunny crybaby territory and it feels like pulling faces to the animals in the zoo to engage