Tuesday, July 26, 2011

A Bitch Or A Slut?

Apparently a number of men have assigned themselves a task reserved for those with a degree in Anthropology. They have taken to categorizing women into two groups.  If she is physically attractive (wears make-up, stylish clothing etc.) is friendly, at least somewhat receptive to attention from or communication with men, she is a “slut.” If she has a “type A” personality, is career-oriented, opinionated or simply a “slut” who is not receptive to attention from or communication with men she is a “bitch.”  

These experts have wisely deduced the need for certain protocols on how to interact with each group. Naturally “sluts” should be leered at, groped, and cat-called. They expect and accept sexual advances of both the aggressive and suggestive nature. On the other hand, “bitches” require a more hostile approach and ought to be bullied, belittled, and discredited. As this group is not receptive to sexual advances, it is best to make them feel unattractive so as to discourage the notion that they can choose with whom they interact sexually.
Often real life examples are the best illustrations. Consider Logan, a tall attractive woman. One afternoon she was involved in a fender bender. While exchanging information in the presence of a police officer, a truck full of college-age males passed by and noticed her stylish figure and long dark hair. “Choke on my dick!!” They yelled. Logan looked to the officer for help; he laughed saying he had enough paperwork to fill out on the accident. This incident is typical for “sluts.” 

Consider “Olivia,” a petite attractive young woman. During a night out with friends she was approached by a man approximately her own age. He mistakenly treated her like a “slut,” touching her on the stomach and asking if she wanted to dance. Olivia brushed away his hand and proceeded on with indifference. “Fuck you, you ugly fucking bitch!” he yelled and continued to stand nearby. A friend of Olivia’s who heard the exchange, stood in between the two and told him to walk away. “Fuck you! I don’t know you bitch!” was his reply. This incident is typical for “bitches.” 

Both the categorization and the interactions that follow are barbaric and reprehensible. If a woman were under the legal age, it would be outrageously inappropriate for her to endure either characterization. If a woman were the mother, sister, cousin or wife of one of these scientific experts he would be livid and bent on retribution, perhaps even violently so. If a woman is of a certain age and not a personal acquaintance then she is vulnerable to disrespect; her treatment is akin to that of a blow-up doll or a “pocket pussy.”  

Women are not inanimate objects. They are living, breathing, feeling human beings with the same dreams, abilities and rights as any man. Only moral degenerates and dim-witted sexists think otherwise.  As a post-Suffrage society, we ought to be embarrassed that we have allowed such deplorable behavior to continue. It must be condemned until it is eradicated and women are free to walk down the street without being harassed, and are able to deny an advance without being insulted. 

I may be affectionate and attractive but I am not a slut. I may be driven and powerful but I am not a bitch. I am a glorious being with the ability to bring forth life. I am a woman and that is all I wish to be called.

Thursday, February 17, 2011


Yolis and I sit together watching her new house being built. A sturdy shed-like structure is being raised up beside her previous place of living – a dark, tiny shanty made of scraps of wood and plastic and cloth. The road in front of us is a tangled mess of stones, and discarded objects – broken dolls, candy wrappers, flat tires, broken bottles, and various other unidentifiable scraps of trash. Children are yelling as they kick a soccer ball back and forth in the flattest parts of the road. Construction sounds mingle with this yelling; people are hammering, painting and cleaning as they attempt to squeeze the last bit of usefulness out of themselves before 5:00 arrives.

Yolis and I sit silently taking in the busyness of others. She is resting comfortably in my lap; her brown completion both contrasting and complimenting my fairness. Our lives are opposites; she has only known the cruelties of poverty and I the comforts of privilege and yet there is a sisterly camaraderie between us. Her eyes grow heavy in the warm sun and I gently brush her black hair out of my face. She leans back and smiles at me; we do not need a translator for this exchange.

Monday, February 14, 2011


My name has become like a cruel brand – burned onto my person ever reminding me I will never be able to give my father the one thing he wanted most from me.  He has said on many occasions with great conviction that he does not care who I marry or where I work so long as I am a Christian. He best expressed this expectation when he named me because Kristina means “follower of Christ.” Ever striving to make my father proud, I fulfilled this desire with ease – attending church faithfully, ascribing to evangelical dogma, and pursing vocational ministry. All of this made my father proud, and with his pride came a steadfast assurance of his affections.  He once told me he interpreted my dedication to Christianity as a sort of redemption of his failures.  This statement initially strengthened my resolve to follow Christ but ultimately it has come to haunt me.

Over the past few years I have become disillusioned; my faith has completely dissolved and with it my confidence in my father’s love for me.  I see him look at me with worry and disappointment, but he is more disappointed in himself than he is in me; the daughter who was meant to redeem him is now his greatest failure.  This devastates me.  My father has many wounds which have caused him to be distant and critical; I have always forgiven him for the pain he has caused me because I believed I could be the person he wished he had been.  I should have been a salve but now I fear I am the greatest wound of all. My father will always have my love and forgiveness, but I struggle to forgive myself for turning what he hoped would be a legacy into a lie – my name is a cruel brand.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Kiss Your Women Good-Bye

The church is guilty of serious crimes against women: objectification, misinformation, ideological degradation and disunity. For centuries these transgressions have been written off and white-washed; worse still they are supposedly a reflection of the will and character of God. Adding divine clout is a manipulative technique which denies women the freedom to question these atrocities. Demanding equality from a husband or father is difficult enough, how much more so is it for women to demand equality from their God?  Perhaps when charges are filed and evidence is presented, this institution will acknowledge the part it has played in the subjugation and mistreatment of the female sex.

The church objectifies women by perpetuating the notion that women are sexual objects and not sexual beings. Keeping the female body covered is a pet obsession. From a young age Christian women are taught their physiology is the key to man’s undoing. They are charged with the impossible task of eliminating lust from all male minds. Modest clothing is regulated on extreme levels. Even makeup and styled hair, expressions of individuality and creativity, are demonized as vanity and seduction. This fixation on appearance is an overreaction to the hyper-sexualized American society which also fixates on the female body.  Ironically the church is no different from the culture it fears and despises, for it too focuses on the female body with only a slight alteration. They obsess over the female physical structure not because it is beautiful and useful for pleasure, but because it is distracting and useful for “sinful” pleasure. Thus the church continues to devalue women as nothing more than a sexual object. 

Because women are viewed in this manner and never acknowledged as sexual beings, they are never educated on how to enjoy a healthy sexual lifestyle. Furthermore, because the female body is alleged to be evil, women are unfamiliar not only with their own anatomy but also with how to experience sexual pleasure. Many Christian women have been married and sexually active for years but have never or rarely ever experience an orgasm. Sex, an act which ought to be the most intimate moment of actualized equality, is perhaps the most sexist of all acts in that it is defined by whether or not the male orgasms. The church continues to peddle the myth that sex is dirty, taboo and essentially another chore which all dutiful wives must perform in order to keep their husband’s happy. By attempting (and failing) to regulate sex, women are denied the ability to develop and maintain a healthy and balanced sex life. Such would not be the case if the church valued and celebrated women as sexual beings equally capable and deserving of sexual fulfillment.
The church misleads women regarding their life options by proclaiming and insinuating that a woman’s ultimate destiny is marriage and motherhood. Because they have been misinformed, few can conceive of anything superior to being a “help mate.” This is not to say that women who choose to pursue a vocation over a family choose better. There is absolutely no shame in marriage and motherhood! Such a path requires every bit of strength, cunning and creativity as the path of a career woman. The point is that women deserve to be told they have options. Contrarily, women are encouraged and pressured to marry and conceive before they have ever had a chance to live on their own. They leave the house of their father only to move into the house of their husband. Instead of empowering women to develop their talents and pursue their dreams, the church corrals them into the fenced in life of an assistant. 

Even more subversive Christian women are indoctrinated to view marriage as a pre-requisite to career goals. Finding fulfillment in something other than making a home for her husband is highly questionable to the church. Yet because women of faith who have their own dreams and goals for affecting change in the world (beyond raising Christian children) do exist, there is need for a back-up-plan to ensure they do not escape male headship. The church will generally refrain from frowning upon career women so long as their work does not interfere with their wifely duties. Nevermind that little is ever said to men who allow their careers to come before their duties as a husband! Has any Christian man ever been heralded for supporting his wife while she pursues vocational success? If these sorts of men even exist, they are but skeletons in the church’s closet – a thing of shame. 

 This concept of a singular role for women is almost as ancient as the institution of marriage itself.  In previous centuries, when women were denied education and self-sufficiency, marriage and motherhood as the only viable option is significantly less appalling. Perhaps confining women to such a sentence was at one time necessary for the greater good yet, as science and experience continue to reveal that the “weaker sex” is capable of mastering “male” strengths (physical, moral, and mental), there is less and less need for such a starch dichotomy of roles – or more accurately a singular role for women as men are never denied access to any role other than mother or nurse maid.  (And if bringing forth life were not also attributed to the divine, I for one would happily support any science which would allow for men to assume these roles as well).
In addition to being lied to, women are degraded ideologically by having to sort through a number of contradictory Christian teachings regarding their value and place in the church. Do women receive the rite of salvation as men do – through belief, baptism etc. – or are they saved through childbirth as 1 Timothy 2:13 suggests? If childbirth is indeed a requirement for heavenly residence, how are barren women meant to make peace with God?  Moreover, why does the church ostracize single mothers or condemn teen pregnancy? These women are only following the biblical instructions regarding salvation. 

Perhaps even more confusing is the issue of women’s roles. 1 Timothy 2 also states that women are to learn in silence and submission. Does this mean women are forbidden from asking questions? Is a woman required to submit herself to a teacher regardless of his morality or education? Is there ever an occasion in which a woman is permitted to correct her male teacher? Can she teach secular subjects? Can she give driving directions?  If the strictest interpretation of this text is correct, how is one to understand Phoebe, Junia, Deborah, Huldah, Miriam and other female leaders in the biblical narratives? And why are women allowed to lead small groups, and teach Sunday school, or become missionaries, but are restricted from standing behind a pulpit or donning a priest’s robe? Many have suggested the reason women are forbidden from teaching men is because they are daughters of Eve and therefore more easily deceived. If this is indeed the case, why are women permitted to teach children who are incapable of detecting deception? Would it not make more sense for women to teach men who would theoretically be more capable of pointing out any errors? 

Church leadership cannot see the forest for the sake of the trees. They allow the most troubling texts to interpret how they understand the entirety of the Bible rather than letting all of the texts concerning women interpret and overshadow the few sexist texts. Perhaps the verses that seem out of place do so for a reason; they actually are. Even ardent Evangelicals could choose to explain away these verse as culturally irrelevant as they do with a number of other texts in the Bible (all of the laws in the Old Testament for example, or the verses regarding appropriate dress in the infamous 1 Timothy passage). But many refuse to take this out and generally the church does little to clarify the mixed messages. In fact quite often they only further dilute the ideological waters. Women are left to wrestle with these issues alone. Their identity crisis receives neither attention nor sympathy.

This indifference has caused more than just confusion; it is also directly responsible for disunity among Christian women. The “Submissives” who for one reason or another are content with the way they are treated and viewed in the church are pitted against the “Subversives” who out of discontent with the inequality they see seek to change their faith culture. Apparently even the most righteous men enjoy a girl fight. Not only do the majority of Christian males refuse to acknowledge the mistreatment of women in the church, but by ignoring the troubling texts they deny women the ability to truly unite together as one collective entity. Because unification is made improbable, the equality problem is never validated and consequently change becomes nothing more than a far-off dream. 

Most reprehensible of all is that the church turns a blind eye to these egregious errors. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing they masquerade as a beacon of love and equality all the while objectifying, degrading misleading and subjugating women, yet they remain dumbfounded and accusatory when driven intelligent women abandon these ancient patriarchal chains. The church needs to prepare itself for the continued exodus of half of its spiritual work force. Why would anyone willingly submit themselves to an organization which both directly and indirectly classifies them as a second-class citizen because of their anatomical features? (This “Subversive” has already submitted her letter of resignation.)  While exceptions of equality certainly exist, the church as a whole is culpable and must be brought to justice. Unfortunately, because uneducated, arrogant men hold so much power in this institution it is unlikely the necessary apologies will be said and the overdue retribution will be paid.  Those of us who have left or who remain as the alternative voices speak out together, echoing the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “It is possible to free oneself - to adapt one's faith, to examine it critically, and to think about the degree to which that faith is itself at the root of oppression."

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

"Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" - It's Ludicrous!

Faith is not a reasonable thing. It will never and should never be synonymous with “fact.” Attempts to “prove” religious beliefs always fail, resulting only in transforming them into the most hideous of religious features: dogmatic fundamentalism. Over the past few decades Christian apologetics has gained considerable attention and authority. It is now common belief among Evangelicals that Christianity has a “one-up” on all other faiths (and non-faiths) because it is the most logically and historically sound. It is not only reasonable to be a Christian, it is only reasonable to be a Christian.

    Unfortunately this seemingly iron-clad defense is nothing more than a house of cards.  The very arguments which allegedly “prove” Christianity to be a head above the rest can just as easily “prove” Islam to be the only reasonable religion. Muslims are generally considered by argumentative apologists to be violent, anti-Western cave-men who would most assuredly convert to Christianity if they only knew the historical and logical proof of its singular authenticity. This gross over-exaggeration and misconception necessitates a deconstruction of the “air-tight” defense popularized by non-experts who have contributed in creating an arrogant and ignorant Christian culture.

    Most popular in Evangelical Christianity is the “Liar, Lunatic, Lord,” defense which originated with the great atheist-turned-Christian thinker, C.S. Lewis, who wanted to refute the belief that Jesus was just a good man or a prophet. Perhaps its errors will become more palpable when applied to the prophet Muhammad. Like Jesus, Muhammad also claimed to know the only way to God when he said, “those who believe and do good, and believe in that which has been revealed to Muhammad — and it is the Truth from their Lord — He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition. According to Lewis such an absolute assertion is either a lie, a delusion, or the truth. Thus Muhammad must be one of the following: a liar, a lunatic or the seal of the prophets of God. 

    Muhammad could not have been a liar. He was a deeply spiritual man prone to regular periods of reflection and solitude. He faced numerous set-backs in his life: doubt, despair, defeat – all too humiliating to endure for the sake of a lie. His call to less materialistic, more God honoring lifestyle was a change many in his community found distasteful. Much like the story of Abraham, Muhammad lived in a polytheistic culture, but claimed that only one God existed and deserved complete devotion and obedience. Though his message became increasingly unpopular, Muhammad became increasingly vocal. As a result he was forced to leave his tribe – all that was familiar. That his own people would reject him and reject the one true God was deeply depressing to Muhammad. However, this sadness did not keep the prophet from living out the life of submission to God. He prayed daily, gave to the poor, sought justice for the oppressed, and accepted without judgment the members of the lower class – aliens and slaves.  These practices – lowly and unpopular - would not have been taken up by a deceitful man interested only in wealth, fame and power.  Muhammad’s endurance and commitment stand as testimony to the fact that he certainly believed what he was saying was truth, therefore He could not have been a liar.

    Perhaps Muhammad was crazy. If he believed he was indeed a prophet of God with a special revelation but this was not true, then he was a delusional ego-manic. A careful look at Muhammad’s life will show that this is also not an option. When Muhammad was forced to leave his home in Mecca because of his unpopular claims about being the prophet of the one true God, he traveled to the city of Medina – much less cosmopolitan than his previous residence. Medina had long been an area of conflict due to feuds between tribes over territory rights. Muhammad stepped in as an arbitrator and successfully facilitated peace among the Arab tribes. This unification made Medina a powerful community. Outside forces began to raid commercial caravans creating a need for a military leader who could defend the city and its people. Again the people turned to Muhammad, who was able yet again to be effective as a leader. Gaining power and respect did not cause the prophet to give up his religious beliefs. In fact, he incorporated these into the laws and treaties he helped create. His leadership was not characterized by paranoid self-important decisions. His actions were for the good of the community he helped to establish. Such could not be said of a delusional ego-manic. Therefore Muhammad could not have been a lunatic. According to the reasoning of C. S. Lewis, this leaves only one option for Muhammad. He was not a liar, or a lunatic, so he must be the prophet of God he claimed to be.    

   Based on the general arguments provided by Christian Apologists, Muhammad was indeed a prophet of God – the seal of the prophets. He possessed the knowledge of how to please God as described in the holy book, the Qur’an. According to the logic of the “Liar, Lunatic, Lord” defense, it is not only reasonable to be a Muslim, it is only reasonable to be a Muslim.

    The point of this exercise is not to destroy the Christian faith. Instead it is an attempt to open the eyes of the arrogant and ignorant Christians who claim to have indisputable proof that they alone are right. Such proof does not exist – not for Muhammad and not for Christ – or any other religious leader. Faith cannot be proven nor should it; to prove faith is to ruin it. The current attempts to do so have only succeeded in creating elitist attitudes. Christian Apologetics have become a weapon in the hands of many untrained or half-trained theologians – sometimes used in defense and sometimes used in a “loving” offense. Either way it is a weapon and such a thing only creates more fear, arrogance, division, hate and death. And such a weapon ultimately ends in self-destruction; as Jesus said, “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.”

Thursday, September 23, 2010

What Will You Do With Our Suffering?

Women are suffering in Afghanistan. The NY Times reports that many young Afghani girls are dressed up as young boys for “economic need, social pressure to have sons, and in some cases, a superstition that doing so can lead to the birth of a real boy.” In many Islamic nations, women are not allowed to leave their home without being accompanied by a male relative. If no such relative exists, women are forced to transform their daughters into sons so they can simply buy food for their family. Nina Burleigh, recently wrote in the Huffington Post, about the terrorism against Afghani school girls. “It appears the Taliban, taking a page out of the Nazi playbook, has been pumping stuff like Zyklon B, the notorious Holocaust gas, into girls' schools, to further their goal of keeping their females illiterate.” The claims of these young women were disregarded for two years chalked up to nothing more than female hysteria.

Women are suffering in Africa. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in her book Infidel, recounts her personal experience of undergoing female circumcision. It is a common practice in Somalia in which the clitoris and sometimes other parts of the vagina are cut off and then sown shut in order to ensure young women remain virgins until their husbands cut them open on their wedding night.  The obsession with preserving virginity is so extreme that male family members perform “honor killings” against less chaste women. According to Hirsi Ali these horrors occur in Somalia, Ethiopia, and all over the world.

Women are suffering in the third world. Dr. Paul Farmer, in his book Pathologies of Power, recalls the stories of young impoverished Haitian women who have little choice to ward off advances from military officials. These advances are always reciprocated either out of fear or desire to escape poverty. Farmer wonders how the traditional understanding of “consensual sex” can apply to such a situation.

Women are suffering in Europe, Asia, and America. Five years ago, CBS went undercover to buy a young Romanian girl out of the sex slave trade. They paid almost $2,000 to free her. The slave trade has only grown in number and depravity. In Indonesia, young girls are forced into sex slavery. If they try to escape or refuse to perform, they are gang raped or tortured. A popular tactic is to stuff hot chilies into the girl’s vaginal cavity and leave her strung up for days. Many are sown shut at the close of every work day so that they can be sold again as a “virgin.”  Sex slavery has permeated every part of the world including the U.S.  In the Office of Children and Family Services 2007 Prevalence Study, it was found that more than 2,000 young girls are victimized by commercial sexual exploitation in New York alone.

 What is the total number of injustices that must occur against women in order for anger to finally turn into action? There is little doubt that if men were subjected to the same oppressive tortures, action would be instantaneous. If men were valued as less than women and forced to dress and act as the other sex in order to provide for their family, perhaps outrage would be more widespread. If men were forbidden education and threatened for expressing independence, a civil rights revolution would likely follow. If men had their genitals mutilated and were killed for not remaining abstinent, surely then reform would be imminent. If men were pressured to sleep with women in power in order to ensure their survival, certainly then both liberals and conservatives would put aside their differences to enact change. If men were manipulated and forced into sexual slavery, if they endured acid burns and sexual degradation perchance their cries would be heard and their sufferings end.

Neglecting the duty of fighting inequality and injustice will not prohibit a revolution but it will certainly create a great divide between those who fought and those who watched. Consider the Civil Rights Movement. Though equal rights were finally awarded – as indeed they should have - equal respect has never been fully cultivated Though exceptions certainly exist, overall the evils of segregation and suspicion remain entwined in the fabric of our culture (and other cultures with similar oppressive histories). Thus the Civil Rights Movement was only half of a triumph. The blame does not rest on the White Citizens’ Council or the Klu Klux Klan but rather on the sympathetic who remained silent and drug their feet when the opposite was required. Had they indignantly demanded equality along with their black brothers and sisters, true unity would now be a reality.

 The same is true for the women’s rights movement; for one day, either with or without help, we women will free ourselves. We will help our sisters name their suffering. We will empower one another to reclaim our right to life. We will endure and we will overcome. But we will not forget those who stood silently by and watched us do it on our own.

It is the duty of all humankind to fight tirelessly against inequality and injustice, yet many who are unaffected by these evils remain unmoved. Wishing life was better for those who experience oppression is not enough. Do not be silent! Contact your senator. Tell them you want the degradation of women to end both in the U.S. and around the world. Donate to a charity. Help buy freedom for one of the millions of women and young girls who are forced to work in the sex industry. Educate yourself about relevant legislation and campaigns.  But perhaps above all, do not ignore the cries of the oppressed. Listen to their stories, acknowledge their pain, and enact change on their behalf as if they were your own sister or mother or daughter.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Don’t Be So Modest!

I remember settling down for what I thought would be a normal (boring) day in my afternoon class, The Nature of the Church, only to be unpleasantly surprised by a lecture on modesty. This was more than a lecture; it was an accusation addressed solely to women. I listened with growing rage as the professor – who looked deceptively wise because of his white hair and matching beard - listed the specific fashion trends he found offensive and immoral. He followed this list with instructions for what specific “worship movements” were inappropriate. I’m sure you don’t mean to be a distraction, but you should really think about where attention is being drawn when you’re jumping up and down during worship. He all but suggested we wear bed sheets and sit in the corner without making any sudden movements as they might be mistaken as sensual.

At the time, I did not know how to respond to his indictment, but now that I am several years older and wiser, I would like to offer a rebuttal. My rebuttal is not addressed to only this particular professor because this was certainly not the first time I had heard teachings on modesty; it was just the first time it made me mad. As a young girl my skirts were measured, my necklines tested, and the tightness of my clothes evaluated. When I became a young woman I was lectured on my spiritual duty to be modest. Men are sexual beings, I was told. They are visually stimulated and it’s very difficult for them to control themselves. Thus it is your responsibility to dress modestly in order to keep them from stumbling. Dressing immodestly was beyond distasteful; it forced men to think about sex. My body was dangerous; it had the power to steal a man’s thoughts from God! So of course I was more than willing to reject the many blacklisted articles of clothing and physical movements.

One of the main reasons why I was angered by this professor’s rant was he never addressed my male peers. He is not the only one who fails to address the other sex. Here is what is said to Christian men on the subject: Oh yeah and you guys dress modestly too. Don’t take off your shirt while you’re working out. Talk of spiritual duty or threat of constant inspections were absent from their instructions. In fact the one practical rule they were given was never enforced. If I decided to whore it up and run on the treadmill in my sports bra, I would be told immediately to go put on some real clothes and would later receive some measure of discipline.  On the other hand if a young man was caught lifting weights without a shirt, nothing was said. After all it was just the male body; there is nothing offensive about that, no sensuous curves or slender delicacy to take in. Only the female body is understood to produce evil, not the male body.  Thus both the standards and the measures taken to uphold them promote inequality.

Consider this: in no other cases of over-indulgence or addiction is it acceptable to blame anyone but the individual who cannot control themselves. Can an obese person blame food? Can an alcoholic blame liquor? Can a shopaholic blame vendors? Can a pedophile blame children? No, of course not! But when it comes to a man’s inability to control his sexual desires, women are to blame. Let me be clear. I am not angry at modesty. I am not even suggesting that Christian women should start revealing more skin.  Each woman should dress according to her level of comfort because the conservative teachings on modesty are discriminatory and thus invalid for two reasons.

First of all, singling out women in modest charges assumes only men have sexual desires. News flash: women are also sexual beings - even CHRISTIAN women! Just because they sometimes desire sex in different ways, does not mean they desire it less. They think sexual thoughts and dream sexual dreams. They too look admiringly and even lustfully at male bodies and use these images to imagine a sexual encounter. So, if Christianity is going to insist that it is a woman’s duty to keep the sexual desires of men in check, then it must also insist (with equal conviction) that it is a man’s duty to keep the sexual desires of women in check.  Let’s just be honest here: Good luck with that! Enjoy the pressures of trying to control someone else’s mind.

Lastly, modesty is completely subjective. There is no absolute standard even within one particular culture. So to require women to conform to the varying and often contradictory “modesty” definitions of all Christian males is maddening! Some men find the lower back sensual while others could care less about that area and are more interested in a woman’s neck or her legs or her breasts. The only way to make everyone happy is to dress in a burka, but even this is unsuccessful. In cultures where women keep their body completely covered in loose fabric, adultery and promiscuity still occur regularly. (In her book Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes the occurrences of honor killings in Somalia, Ethiopia, Holland, and all over the world. Honor killings occur when a young Muslim woman is killed by the men in her family because she has brought shame on them by losing her virginity before marriage or committing adultery. Hirsi Ali also notes that a number of young women kill themselves because of related “sins.”) By contrast one might wonder why there are no reports of female Christian missionaries being sexually violated by the indigenous men of the Ecuadorian jungles. After all according to conservative American teachings, these men who see women walk around in almost nothing ought to be sex-crazed animals. So because the standards are impossibly illusive and even the most extreme measures are not good enough, all women should be free to dress as they feel comfortable without fearing an ill-reputation or scathing rebuke.

Women must be released from the impossible burden of keeping men from sin. The definition of modesty is ever-evasive and too often controlled by the men who are too weak or too lazy to take responsibility for themselves. There is nothing evil or shameful about the female body which would require it to be hidden in the manner often suggested.  Women who are criticized for not covering enough of their sensuous curves or are denied the identity of a sexual creature, may take solace in the fact that they are not alone but more importantly, that they are not the problem.