This week marks the first anniversary of SlutWalk.

The first SlutWalk demonstration took place in Toronto, Canada, on April 3, 2011. The rally was held in response to a Toronto police officer’s statement that young women could help safeguard themselves against rape by dressing more modestly.

Feminist activist, Sonya Barnett, was incensed at his remark. She bristled at the implication that provocatively dressed women were in any way responsible for their own victimization and abuse. Barnett argued that girls should have the right to dress slutty without fear of sexual assault. Suggesting otherwise, places the blame on the female victim, and excuses the behavior of the male perpetrator.

Barnett organized a protest march to the Toronto Police Station, which she dubbed “SlutWalk.” Through it, she hoped to raise society’s collective consciousness, and to encourage girls to:

• “reclaim” the word “slut” and other such negative male-defined labels,
• exert their right to reject male-defined, patriarchal norms of female dress and behavior, and
• protest a culture that puts blame on the victims of sexual assault.

Proud to be a Slut?

Over the past year, more than 50 SlutWalks have taken place in the US, Canada, and around the world, including Australia and Britain. The events are similar to “Take Back the Night” rallies. But they differ, because addressing sexual violence is only one of their aims. SlutWalk also wants to aggressively redefine notions about woman’s sexuality.

To that end, SlutWalkers sport T-shirts and signs with slogans like, “Sluts pay Taxes,” or “I’m Proud to be a Slut.” Many protesters dress provocatively, in skimpy leather thongs, bras, skank-boots, and fishnet stockings, paint the word “slut” on their bare skin, or skate around on inline skates in lingerie. Their male supporters wear shirts that read, “I Love Sluts!” The message is that it’s misogynistic when men categorize women as sluts, but it’s empowering when women define themselves as such. Women have the right to be as slutty as they want to be.

Sexual violence is a problem that ought to concern us all. However, I fear that SlutWalks do little to improve woman’s lot. In fact, they arguably exacerbate the very problem they say they’re trying to solve.

Why SlutWalk Ideology is Bad for Women

SlutWalk ideology is bad for women. Here are five reasons why:

1. It absolves girls of risk-management responsibility:

Telling a girl to be careful about the way she dresses, where she goes, and how she behaves is about risk management, not victim blaming. Risk management is an important consideration in many areas of life. For instance, earlier this week a local hockey player left his car unlocked and key in the ignition when he jumped on the team bus for an out-of-town game. He’s lucky his car wasn’t stolen.

Had it been, his dad, a police officer, would have still brought the full force of the law to bear on the thief. The “invite” of an open car doesn’t reduce or minimize a thief’s culpability. But that doesn’t mean that leaving your car unlocked is smart. It’s not good risk management.

SlutWalk ideology puts the entire onus for sexual conduct on the guys. It teaches girls that they don’t need to manage risk. It encourages foolish behavior.  It implies that a girl can dress provocatively, go to a guy’s apartment, get drunk, get naked, pole dance, come on to him, and then accuse him of rape when he doesn’t stop at the last minute. C’mon girls. Use your brains. Yes, he may be culpable of rape, but you sure didn’t do yourself any favors by throwing your car doors open. If you’re wise, you’ll put up boundaries to safeguard yourself against the risk of unwanted sexual attention and not put yourself in risky situations.

Don’t misunderstand me. Women who are sexually abused are NOT at fault. A crime is a crime. But there are sometimes things that girls can do to lesson their vulnerability– particularly in social dating situations.

2. It equates sex with power:

SlutWalk buys into Third Wave feminist ideology that sex is power. It preaches that sex is ultimately the way a girl exerts and expresses her freedom and equality. It intimates that slutty women are powerful women. If a girl wants more power, then she’ll throw off male-defined Judeo-Christian notions about sex. Sadly, I see the carnage of this attitude in multitudes of today’s young women -even those who are Christians. Power is not the right to do what you want, nor to act in a sensual, promiscuous, immoral way. True power is “the might to do what’s right”—It’s the backbone and strength to walk in the way of the Lord.

 3. It teaches girls it’s cool to be crass

I gotta admit I had a hard time writing this post. Though the post called for it, I don’t like using the word “slut.” I think it’s crass, crude, and inappropriate.  Since when is being ill-mannered and potty-mouthed a mark of personal empowerment? SlutWalk would have us believe it is. A Huffington Post writer sarcastically entitled her response to the movement: “Dear Feminists, Will You Also Be Marching in N***erWalk? Because I Won’t.”  It’s NOT cool to be crass. It does nothing to elevate women or womanhood.

4. It casts men as oppressors

If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’ll get the treatment wrong.

SlutWalk blames the problem of sexual abuse on patriarchy. It buys into the feminist mindset that throughout history men have been on a misogynistic power trip, and part of a massive subversive patriarchal plot to oppress women. Men are bad. Women are good. Get rid of male privilege and you’ll get rid of the problem.

Well guess what?  Women can be bad too. Female to male domestic violence is statistically just as prevalent as male to female. And the feminist argument that women act this way because of the patriarchal system is simply not true.

Yes, due to the mechanics of male-female plumbing, women are raped more than men. Rape is a horrible wrong. But at its core, the problem isn’t maleness or men. It’s sin. Some men are oppressors.  But many are decent, honorable guys who’ll throw themselves on a sword to protect the ones they love. It’s high time we stopped swallowing the lie that the male sex is responsible for all the world’s ills.

5.  It encourages sexual permissiveness

SlutWalk wants girls to stop feeling shame. A girl should be able to act trashy without feeling trashy about the way she acts. A Slutwalk Organizer explains:

“The event is in protest of a culture that we think is too permissive when it comes to rape and sexual assault,” said Siobhan Connors, 20, of Lynn, Massachusetts, another Boston organizer. “It’s to bring awareness to the shame and degradation women still face for expressing their sexuality … essentially for behaving in a healthy and sexual way.”

Okay, let me get this straight. SlutWalk thinks that we live in a culture that’s too permissive with regards to men forcing women to have sex. But it also thinks that it’s healthy for women to be sexually permissive. Whoa. Now there’s some fancy mental gymnastics! How–pray tell–does the idea that it’s healthy for women to sleep around outside of marrige detract guys from pressuring, coercing, or forcing them to do so? Surely, if it’s healthy for girls to sleep around, then it logically follows that it’s healthy for guys to expect girls to engage in that type of behavior. It fosters the mentality, “Of course you want it! All girls want it!  It’s good for you!”

Sexual violence is a horrific sin. But SlutWalk isn’t helping matters any. Sadly, I think it’s just shooting women in the foot. It’s creating a mindset and culture that exacerbates the very problem it says it wants to solve.

Related posts:

1. Girls Gone Skank
2. Boobquake

Take the T-shirt a friend of mine spotted for sale in Target, for example. In large, garish print designed to splash across a girl’s developing breasts the T-shirt proclaims, “Who needs boys, I can WIN by myself!”

Just think about it for a moment. On the surface, the slogan seems to encourage a girl to develop a healthy self-respect and avoid getting enmeshed in dependent relationships.  But there’s an underlying message here. The slogan insinuates that men are inferior, and that they are expendable. It fosters an unhealthy, independent, a-woman-needs-a-man-like-a-fish-needs-a-bicycle, type of attitude.

Honestly, what would you think would happen if Target started selling a boy’s shirt that spouted: “Who needs GIRLS, I can WIN by myself”? Can you imagine the outrage?

Power and Independence

Today’s young woman is taught to value personal power and independence. She can WIN! She doesn’t need men. Indeed, in order to truly win, she must do so without them. Men are the bad guys. They’re the ones who stand in the way of a woman reaching her full potential. They’re the optional and disposable piece in a woman’s life. Independence is the highly prized and sought after trait that will guarantee her success. So she approaches relationships with the resolve to retain her autonomy at all costs.

Even in Christian circles, we cultivate an attitude of independence in our girls. The underlying message is that women need to be independent because men are untrustworthy, and will almost certainly let them down.

But can a woman truly “win” in a world without men? Is she better off without ties to a godly father, uncle, cousin, husband, or brother? Will she succeed when she fiercely exerts her autonomy and regards and treats men as non-essential? Will this attitude actually enhance her relationships and her life?

I think not.

Independence versus Interdependence

God created the two sexes to be interdependent—not dependent, codependent, or independent. This is the case in marriage, and is also the case in the general way the sexes interact with one another. Scripture actually cautions us against adopting an independent attitude:

“In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman and all things come from God.” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)

God did not create male and female to operate independently. In this game called life, we’re players on the same team. We’re “heirs together of the grace of life.”

You will do your daughter a disservice if you teach her to be fiercely independent. It’s not a biblical perspective, and it’s not good for her.  Yes, you should teach her to guard against unhealthy relationships, and not to look to men for her source of identity.  But at the same time, you should be careful to teach her to respect men, to encourage and speak well of them, and to value and welcome the contribution that they can make to her life.

I understand that there are some scum-bags out there. I understand that your daughter may never get married. Or that her spouse might ditch her. Scripture provides an answer to these potential situations.  It teaches that God has a special spot in His heart for women who don’t have dads or husbands. It promises that in such situations, He will be their father or husband.

We Need Each Other

Women need men. Even those who will never have a boyfriend or husband need men. Do not buy into culture’s idea that men are unnecessary. Do not teach your daughter to be independent of men. Do not teach her to devalue men and write them off as inconsequential to her life.  We need men. We need them to be the fathers, brothers, husbands, protectors, providers, and heroes God created them to be. Being interdependent and having healthy relationships with males enriches a woman’s life. To truly “win”, women and men need to function interdependently.

It may be true that a fish doesn’t need a bicycle. But it doesn’t follow that women don’t need men.  Gloria Steinem clearly got it wrong. After all, women aren’t fish, and men aren’t bicycles.

What do you think?

How does an attitude of independence negatively impact male-female relationships?  Why do you think women fear losing their independence? How can women avoid becoming dependent, co-dependent, and independent, and foster a healthy interdependence instead?

Related posts:

1. Men Are Weak…Women Are Machines
2. Where are the Young Men?
3. Can Bad Boys be Godly Men?

The first thing my husband said when he picked up and examined a copy was, “WOW!  This is really striking!”  And it is!  This new eight-week “True Woman 101 – Divine Design” Bible Study is  printed in full color. It’s bright. It’s bold. It’s beautiful! And it’s chock-full of great content! My friend, Nancy, and I spent many months writing it. I had thoroughly previewed a digital copy, but I gotta admit, the final product still WOW-ed me !

It was our aim to provide teaching on womanhood that went beyond cliched advice, shallow caricatures, and cookie-cutter solutions. We wanted to provide a resource with foundational teaching that could be applied to different stages and circumstances of life, and that would be just as applicable to the great-granddaughters of our generation as it is to us.  I think we hit the proverbial “nail on the head”! At least I hope and pray that we did.

Only seven days until True Woman 101 hits the shelves in stores–and until the launch of the new TrueWoman101.com website!

Watch the Promo Video:

• Download a Sampler
• Take advantage of pre-publication pricing! (Hurry – the offer is only good until March 1, 2012)

To celebrate getting my box of books, I’m giving away two free copies! Just leave a comment below, and I’ll draw two names from comments posted before Sunday, February 26, 2012 at midnight (CST)

Congratulations to Tamara Thompson and Rachelle H. –winners of the draw for the True Woman 101 Bible Study books!

(The draw is now closed)

Related posts:

1. Announcing True Woman 101 – Divine Design
2. True Woman 1829
3. True Woman ’10

To the Divine blessing the work is again commended, in the hope that its perusal will stimulate many to aspire after “true womanhood.”

The above book dedication sounds like it was written for True Woman 101 — the book Nancy and I just finished writing (available in Spring 2012). You’ve heard of the True Woman Movement, haven’t you? It launched in Chicago in 2008 with the first True Woman conference, and to date has resulted in almost 25,000 women signing the “True Woman Manifesto.”

The Great Awakening and True Womanhood

But the aforementioned book dedication isn’t for our book. Nor is it for any resource associated with the current True Woman movement. It was written in 1829, for a biography entitled, “True Womanhood: Memorials of Eliza Hessel.” I’ve been digging my way through several books written in and about the 1800s, and was surprised to discover that a “true woman” movement isn’t unique to this generation. It appears that such a movement occurred on the heels of the First Great Awakening, and contributed to the Second and Third Great Awakenings—which were heightened periods of religious revival in American history.

Along with “True Womanhood” (1829), I’m also reading “The Mirror of True Womanhood: A Book of Instruction for Women in the World” (1883), “True Men As We Need Them: A Book of Instruction for Men in the World” (1888), “Noble Womanhood: A Series of Biographical Sketches” (1894), “Womanhood: Lectures on Woman’s Work in the World” (1880), “The New Womanhood” (1904). These are just a few of what feminist historian, Nancy Cott, calls the “efflorescence of didactic writings about womanhood” that sprung up in the early 1800s. I’m also reading Cott’s book, “The Bonds of Womanhood:  ‘Woman’s Sphere’ in New England, 1780-1835,” (written in 1977) in which she quotes from the journals and diaries of women of that era.

The “Cult” of True Womanhood

Hessel’s 1859 biography “True Woman” quickly sold out and went into a second printing. Apparently, womanhood was a popular topic amongst the women of that day. The True Woman Movement of the late 1700s and early 1800s was so strong and prevalent, that feminist historian Barbara Welter dubbed it a “cult.”  (Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820 to 1860.” American Quarterly 18, Summer 1966. pp. 151—174.) Another feminist historian, Aileen S. Kaditor, called it the true woman movement of the 1800s the “Cult of Domesticity.” (I had to smile, since I suspect that feminist historians will undoubtedly also call the modern-day True Woman Movement a “cult.”)

Becoming a True Woman

It’s fascinating to dig into these old books to get an idea of what concepts and ideas motivated the True Womanhood Movement of the 1800s. At this point, I can’t say that I understand enough about it to discern its points of commonality and/or departure from the True Woman Movement of today, or whether or not I would agree with the doctrine and ideology. But I am intrigued to discover that this is not the first time in history that there has been a ground-swell of Christian women who have sought to determine—from a biblical perspective—what God’s design for male and female is all about, and to become God’s true woman.

As the True Woman biographer noted about Eliza Hessel in 1829:

“Soliciting divine assistance, she resolutely determined to attain the nobility of a true woman, and she succeeded.”

Related posts:

1. The True Woman ‘CLICK’
2. True Woman 08 – SOLD OUT
3. True Woman

This morning I had an interesting conversation with Rachel Held Evans, who is writing a book on “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.” Though Rachel and I would likely disagree on several points regarding the Bible’s teaching on womanhood, I deeply appreciate the opportunity for us to dialogue and engage on the topic. Rachel asked me to answer three questions about submission:

• What are some common misconceptions about what it means to be a “submissive wife.”
• Why might some (think secular audience) be surprised to learn that you submit to your husband. In other words, how do you yourself defy the stereotype?
• How long have you been married, and how has submission worked out practically in your marriage? (In other words, what does it look like when you submit to your husband?)

Those are excellent questions!  Here’s how I answered her first question, “What are some common misconceptions about what it means to be a “submissive wife?”

Seven Misconceptions about Submission:

Misconception #1: Submission is universal—the directive applies to all women, even those outside of the faith community.

The biblical directive to submit applies specifically to Christians—it cannot be upheld as a necessity for those outside the faith community. People without the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit have neither the discernment nor the power to live out submission and authority in a godly manner.

Misconception #2: Submission is gender-exclusive—it’s just for women.

Men have a responsibility to submit too—it’s not just something that’s required of women. EVERY Christian, female or male, has the responsibility to submit to the Lord, and also to the authorities the Lord has placed in his or her life. What’s more, the biblical concepts of submission and authority cannot be disassociated. The two are indivisibly connected. A biblical definition of submission cannot be understood apart from a biblical definition of authority.

Misconception #3: Submission is generic—every woman submits to every man.

The Bible instructs a wife to submit herself to her own husband; not to men in general.

Misconception #4: Submission is a right—a husband has the right to demand his wife’s submission.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

Misconception #5: Submission is indiscriminate—it means mindless acquiescence.

A Christian’s first responsibility is to submit to the Lord and His standard of righteousness. A wife is not called to submit to sin, mistreatment, or abuse. The Lord does not want “weak-willed” women—women who lack the discernment and strength to respond to the right things and in the right way. Godly women do not submit to sin. They carefully and intentionally weigh and discern how to submit to sinful human authority in light of their primary responsibility to submit to the ways of the Lord. No brain-dead doormats or spineless bowls of Jello here! Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins. Submission is an attitude of the heart. A woman can have a submissive spirit even when saying “no” and refusing to go along with sin.

Misconception #6: Submission precludes mutuality—it creates lopsided, one-way relationships.

Submission and authority function hand-in-hand with all the other biblical directives about how Christians ought to interact with one another. Along with submitting to her husband, a Christian wife also has the responsibility to be transparent, speak truth, confront sin, and challenge her husband to ever increasing levels of holiness. As heirs together of the grace of life, both husband and wife have the responsibility to love, encourage, and build one another up; and to interact with forbearance, kindness and humility. Biblical authority and submission contribute to mutuality, and do not diminish or detract from it. (It’s “both-and” not “either-or.”)

Misconception #7: Submission promotes abuse—it encourages husbands to be domineering, self-centered boors.

When properly understood and enacted, the framework of hierarchical relationships within the Christian community serves a protective function, because every authority is accountable to a higher authority. This community structure encourages husbands to fulfill their responsibility to love as Christ loves, and holds them to account when they don’t. It fosters Christlikeness and prevents abuse. A wife whose husband is abusive can appeal to higher authorities for intervention and protection. It is the responsibility of the authorities to protect and seek the good of all those under their care.

Defying the Stereotype

Rachel’s second question was “Why might some (think secular audience) be surprised to learn that you submit to your husband. In other words, how do you yourself defy the stereotype?

My answer:

My husband takes his responsibility to love me as Christ loves the Church seriously. I take my responsibility to submit to him seriously. That means that I am cherished and have a voice. That means that he is respected and supported. I work with him, and pull in the same direction. Some might be surprised that I believe in submission because my marriage displays a unity, intimacy, and mutuality that is deep, profound and enviable. I am flourishing. I have what most women want. And it is a great paradox how it is has been achieved. The way of faith is the way of paradox: lose your life to live it, give to receive. It is also a great paradox that honoring God’s pattern for authority and submission in marriage fosters unity and mutuality.

What Does Submission Look Like?

Rachel’s third question was “How long have you been married, and how has submission worked out practically in your marriage? (In other words, what does it look like when you submit to your husband?)

My answer:

I’ve been married for 29 years—“just getting going” says my mom, who’s been married for 62.

“What it looks like” is a difficult question, since submission is not something foreign—not something “other”—to the character of a redeemed woman. Submission is not as much an “action” as it is an “attitude.” So it can’t be dictated by behavioral prescriptives. Submission boils down to a having spirit of amenability. It means being soft, receptive, responsive, and agreeable. Because of the misconceptions surrounding the definition of submission, I actually prefer to use the term “amenability.” Amenability comes from the French amener (to lead). An amenable woman is “leadable” as opposed to “ungovernable” She’s responsive to input and likely to cooperate. Amenability is part of the three-fold womanly disposition of 1 Peter 3:4-5, which includes gentleness, calmness, and amenability—which works itself out in a married woman’s life in submission to her husband.

So “what it looks like” on an on-going basis, is that I am soft, receptive, and agreeable toward my husband. I love responding to his lead. I respect who God created him to be as a man—and support his efforts to provide godly oversight for our family. I respect the position of responsibility that goes along with being a husband and father. “Respect” is probably the best word to describe what submission looks like in my marriage.

For me, submission is one of those things that is far more easily identified by its absence rather than its presence. I know that I am struggling with it when I am critical, impatient, defiant, and “snarky” toward my husband—when I refuse to cooperate and am unresponsive to input, when I rush in and take control, when I fail to “provide space” to allow my husband the opportunity to be a man and provide godly oversight for our family. In other words, it’s not readily apparent to me when I’m submitting, but it’s painfully obvious to me when I am not. I sense that I am disrespecting/ disregarding my husband, taking control, and pulling against him rather than for and with him.

So what do you think?  Is there anything I missed?  Which misconception do you encounter the most? How would you answer Rachel’s three questions? Or do you have any other questions or comments about submission?

Related posts:

1. Mary’s CliffNotes on Authority & Submission (Part 2)
2. Mary’s CliffNotes on Authority & Submission (Part 1)