Thoughts on women...

Going back to Genesis in my reading has been revelatory. I have been circling the scriptures and trying to reconcile in my heart and mind why the concept of male headship makes no sense to me, despite listening to articulate folk explain the complementarian view.  Then God said. "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them ; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them , "Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:26-29). Adam and Eve were both made in Gods image and God did not pronounce humanity was 'good' until after Eve had been created. In ...

I've said before that complementarianism does not exist. For me, complementarianism rests on a spectrum, as most things do. First a definition. Complementarianism is the view that men and women are equal recipients of grace from God and have different roles and responsibilities. Sat on this spectrum you have a vast array of interpretations of this statement and from what I can make out they are largely centred around 'roles and responsibilities' and the value and interpretation assigned to them. It is this problematic inconsistency which makes complementarianism so difficult to pin down or to align with. At one end you have a version which insists on the submission of women in all aspect of life, society and church. Women serve 'at the pleasure of' the men in their lives. Education is seen as unnecessary because their role will be within the home, raising the children and supporting a husband. A man-made 1950's caricature of the well-kept home, wife and kids is ...

When I hear this phrase, my mind goes immediately to the Mel Gibson film 'What Women Want' (because, y'know, films...). For those of you unaware of the premise, Mel Gibson plays a chauvinistic business executive who, after getting electrocuted in the bath, is able to 'hear' what women are thinking. Much hilarity and eventual introspective naval gazing occurs as he navigates the implications of hearing what women really think. His initial reaction is to work out how he can manipulate this ability to his own end, reflective of his original inclination to objectify women. Eventually however, listening to the innermost thoughts of women leads to better relationships with his daughter, colleagues and potential love interests. Of course we would probably do well not to read TOO much into this film. It makes some pretty unhelpful comments about how when a man is so attuned to a woman's thoughts and desires that he must be gay for example. Does it play into and reinforc...