How Not to Make the Church Safe for Women
A Response to Dannah Gresh’s “How Women Can Make Church a Safe Place for Men”
My threshold for surprise has increased dramatically the older I’ve gotten. Nothing shocks me, especially in regard to the way society treats women.
Brown University is punishing a rapist, who choked his victim, with a one semester suspension? I feel anger, but no shock, and continue drinking my tea.
Colleges are backing away from using the term “rape,” and veering towards “nonconsenual sex”? Again, I am frustrated. I tweet about it, and check my email.
A Christian author writes an article entitled “How Women Can Make Church a Safe Place for Men,” and insists that men have uncontrollable sexual urges and thoughts, therefore, Dannah Gresh commands, I must change my way of dressing to accommodate their sensitive eyes.
I almost laugh. Almost, because I grew up with this kind of logic. I grew up in the Pentecostal churches. I was instructed in the ways of purity culture. I avoided v-necks and short skirts because I needed to respect the visual tendencies of boys. I was told I was responsible if a boy had lustful thoughts after seeing me in a bikini (hence never owning a bikini until I was in college). And I bought it.
Dannah Gresh, author of such books as The Secret Keeper: The Delicate Power of Modesty and Pulling Back the Shades: A Sexual Awakening for Spiritual Women, was an influence on my upbringing in purity culture. I remember being excited (yes, really) to buy (again, really) The Secret Keeper. It’s cloaked in empowering language at times with respect to the power and beauty of one’s body. And of course, at twelve years old, with my awkward pre-adolescent body, this message was more than appealing. My body was special, and because of the unique beauty God gave to women, our bodies were a prized gift, only to reveal to our husbands. Of course, this is the farthest thing from empowering; it’s repressive and encourages shame. Dianna Anderson, author of the upcoming Damaged Goods, offers an excellent analysis of Secret Keeper, writing about the cognitive dissonance of Gresh’s position, noting:
For all its affirmation of little girls’ intelligence and humor, it’s hard to get past the cognitive dissonance inherent in Secret Keeper Girl’s modesty doctrine: We shouldn’t care about how the world perceives us, unless we’re talking about our clothing, in which case that’s the only thing that matters.
Gresh uses similar logic in her recent piece in Charisma Magazine, which is targeted at adult women. However, she is more blunt about the supposed effect of a woman’s immodesty on men, noting that more than 60% of Christian men “ are estimated to struggle with continual sexual compulsions of some type.” (It could be higher. In high school, an abstinence-only educator told us men thought of sex every seven seconds.) She continues by discussing her husband’s ministry that aims to help men with mental purity, and how the men who participate claim that women in Church prove their greatest hindrance to mental purity.
We’re at fault, women. It’s all our fault that men have lustful thoughts. Or that’s what Gresh would like us to believe. She goes on to discuss the great weakness of men for women’s beauty, comparing their inevitable arousal to the way a mother may respond to her child missing in a mall:
Do you remember the sick feeling in the pit of your stomach? The rapid pulse? Your body reacted automatically to the situation. You cannot control such reactions by choice. That’s how the ANS works—it forces the body to respond to the environment. Sexual arousal operates the same way. Certain things in the environment—what we see, what we hear, what we smell—work together to tell the brain that the time is right for sexual response. The ANS takes over, and the brain reacts by sending specific chemicals through the body. In a man this reaction is particularly strong since God created him to be visually stimulated. If he sees a woman walk by wearing revealing clothing, his pulse may increase; his body temperature may rise. Other changes may take place as well.
It’s more shame, more essentialist views of gender behavior. They’re men! Of course they’re going to react that way. Men will be men, boys will be boys. This above paragraph is promoting the dangerous view that men are simply creatures of lust who just blindly act or feel on impulse.
Does it sound familiar, readers who may be from outside the church?
It sounds a bit like advice given to young women to avoid being raped.
Think about it. The responsibility is being placed on us for another individual’s actions. If we dress or act a certain way, we are inviting a certain response, an ingrained (biological, in Gresh’s estimation) response that may be unstoppable. Boys will be boys, after all.
I refuse to accept this. The way I choose to present myself is my choice. I am not responsible for someone else’s reaction. The individual is responsible for that. If a man is truly having a compulsive sexual response as often as Gresh claims, maybe HE is the one who should be seeking help, and seeking to control himself. The Church will not be a safe place for women if arguments such as Gresh’s are accepted and embraced.
We need to teach men that all women deserve respect, no matter what they are wearing. Clothing doesn’t increase or decrease your value. You are a human being; your value, if that term is to be used, derives from that fact. Gresh’s article isn’t advocating for respect; it’s advocating to police the behaviors of women in acquiescence to men.
I know I will not feel safe in Church (or anywhere for that matter) until respect of myself and all women (and all people) is extolled over the petty concerns of what one wears.
