“We abandoned the spindle for the voting booth and found that we no longer had a place of our own anymore.” What a great line.
I do find it encouraging how there is such a hunger for the Real amidst so much confusion, so much fakery. Real community, real bread, real milk, real dances—which all point toward and participate in Reality. How ironic that many folks feel they must engage in cosplay in order to recover a lost sense of, well, order and beauty. (I remember how beautiful my fellow Rennies became when they switched from T-shirts and jeans into their bodices and doublets.)
I'm reading Owen Barfield right now, and I think one could say that today there's a longing for what he calls “original participation” with reality—we suspect that the world is not simply dead matter or a whirring machine. Dirt is alive. The spheres sing.
Barfield also writes of the old principle of what Lewis described as having one's “insides on the outside”: The understanding of the human soul and its (or her, I should say, hearkening to the medieval understanding of the soul as feminine in relation to God) telos, and masculinity and femininity in particular, will be reflected in our clothing, architecture, and indeed, overall disposition and bearing.
I'm reminded of the encouragement I found years and years ago reading Rod Dreher's 'Crunchy Cons'—I was introduced to so much good stuff therein, including Eric Brende's work. I'm also always encouraged by my family, wherein I know courageous, competent men who are true husbandmen, and women who love sewing dresses for their daughters, making raw milk cheese and kefir, letting their children ride horses in the woods, and hosting all-are-welcome meals and psalm sings and barn dances.
Have you read John Senior? I think if he and John Seymour had ever befriended each other they would have shaken things up even more than they did separately.
Near to my area is a local back-to-the-land group that holds potlucks and skillsharing events. And I love to be around the ladies there— they wear their natural hair long, sew dresses and make shoes for their children, and cook food with whole ingredients and meat. They have broad smiles that beam over their entire face, and they are knowledgable about the land, the seasons, history, science, literature. Some of them are Christians, some pagans, some queer. And like you said, they make being a woman look fun.
Unfortunately, the Christian women I know are not all like that. Though the women at my church are mostly kind and feminine, their demeanor makes being a woman look nothing but sacrificial. When I talk to them, toting diaper bags, prepackaged baby snacks, and children named after their father’s side of the family, I’d much rather be a man. At least the men get to smoke cigars and laugh.
Yes. I'm all for the patriarchy but the idea that the mother's line essentially ceases when she takes her husband's name is kind of weird. It seems unnecessary for all your kids to be named after their father and paternal grandparents when they already have their father's last name.
I don't really understand where you're coming from I guess? I don't mind the last name thing because it isn't about patriarchy in my mind, but something more archaic (which family are you under to be taxed, drafted, etc). Women traditionally weren't taxed and drafted, so they didn't carry on the last names. I don't think it was a social construct to put men over women. Personally, I prefer the days where nobody had last names, but since we now live in a culture that drafts and taxes its citizens very heavily, there's no getting away from that as thoroughly as one might like. Either way, I'm okay with the burden of war and tax being on the men's shoulders.
I agree, and I see where my original comment was likely confusing-- I meant children with first names and middle names honoring their father, because the father gets to chose the names of 𝘩𝘪𝘴 progeny. There is nothing wrong with the name thing, in and of itself; I was mainly trying to illustrate the lives of women in my circle. They seem sad. They definitely are belittled. And it doesn't have to be this way: women can be housewives, they can be submissive, and still be distinguished matriarchs with their own beautiful and celebrated glories.
We are constantly challenged by interactions with the diversity of our neighbors (ethnically, religously-or not, socially, politically and otherways) and appreciate the perspectives and conclusions you have written. This needs to be heard, read and talked across a broad spectrum (religious and not) of society! Thank you
How do you define "woke"? Is it a sub culture, or is it political/sociological views?
I read your description of these women and the adjectives that came to mind were hippie or crunchy. Woke brings to mind something very different for me: though I recognize a lot of crunchy and hippie women have liberal political and social views, woke brings to mind the realm of angry college students, academics spinning abstractions that they then try to treat as reality, and people who hate their lot in life but aren't sure who to actually be angry at.
I'm not sure if that's a cultural difference (maybe the people in my corner of the country who are liberal leaning just tend to be angrier/academic) or a definitional one.
By woke I mean "into the trans stuff". Some of them are angry, though a lot of my friends who are woke are finding peace by getting into plants, baking, and sewing. Some of them are college students and super into academia (or leaving that world). They are lesbians, angry feminists, and gay men in dresses. But they are figuring out something that the Christian community isn't facing, from what I've experienced when spending time with them.
This is *fascinating*! After reading Wendell Berry's thoughts on the art of husbandry, and feeling disappointed that he doesn't say much about wifery (for lack of a better term) as the practically and artistically necessary counterpart, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what real womanhood means for wifehood, and to what extent sex/gender is necessary for or proper to the art of husbandry/wifery.
Oh, Keturah, how you do make me think!! Years ago...like 2002...My husband and I met a group that the women wore beautiful hand made skirts, long hair, healthy food, etc. They danced and sang, their hair and skirts flowing out behind them. I was a DJ at a local radio station at the time, working in a world of male dominance and with men who perhaps more than in other fields, felt like they could flirt with and harass women. I loved this other community and dreamed of joining up with them, spending every day off among the women cooking, playing with babies and learning about home schooling. I remember going to the store trying to find something that flowed like their dresses - something beautiful. But, like Squirrelly's comment down below, fashion and beauty have eluded me most of my life, and the combination I arrived home with was far from what I'd seen there. But I began to sew my own clothes and bit by bit emerged into this very feminine style of dress, imagining myself dancing away in my flowing skirts.
We never did join that community, but we joined others and moved around a bit. 13 years later we went back to that specific one. What a change had taken place. For one thing everyone was 13 years older. The toddlers were now teenagers, the young newlyweds were now in their 30s. The tired, weariness on their faces was shocking. There was no dancing, very little singing, no babies, no toddlers. Not a whole lot of joy, even though it was a celebration night. Everyone was going through the motions. The teens seemed to speak in a monotone - not the idealistic zeal of their parents from years ago. I myself was pregnant with child number 7 and also weary with my life, also going through the motions.
I make this comment just to say that yes, these young communities of idealists perhaps may have something, but the day in day out trials of life as a woman bearing and raising children, loving one man, struggling to keep the home, to keep ideals, it's not always pretty.
Don't forget that just like those men desiring to be transformed into women, those women in leggings are souls longing to break free as well. Perhaps free from the constraints of legalistic religion where a woman is told to dress and cover her body yet the men go far beyond the verbal harassment I experienced years ago. A woman told all her life to cover her body, to hide her curves, her womanliness from the eyes of men may perhaps one day wish she was a man - wish she could stand up for herself and not be walked all over.
this is unfortunately all too common in christian circles, or can be. It's a very sad thing - our faith and our works are both contingent upon the health of our community and our church, and it's just very hard to get away from that in the day to day matters, especially when we are exhausted and stuck in a rhythm. This is why spiritual revivals became so popular in the church during the 70s onward. Beauty and aesthetics are not enough in any group if they are pursued a lone. They are what draw people toward us, and what makes us stand out as something peculiar and desirable. But there also must be something deeper that can withstand the tempest. Our faith is inspired by beauty, and beauty is nourished by communion. When communion fails, beauty becomes a show, and when beauty becomes a show our faith will waver. This is why it is important to know the principles but to love all men equally - whether it is a man in a dress or a woman in a pair of leggings, they are looking to see if our faith can stand the test of time. They are looking to see if we are hiding our curves (which I would never, ever advise), or if we are living fully free in our femininity without making ourselves a sex object (the woman in leggings or a bikini, and the woman in a baggy dress are really both doing this, and it's not something to judge except to judge ideologically. Rather our compassion much bring woman to a place where they feel free from the abuse of evil men while also feeling empowered to be beautiful (see my reply below, I don't mean to implement standards of societal fashion here.)
To some extent, I am with you. Masculinity and femininity are deeply real, and matter alongside the bare-bones biological "male" or "female." (I love CS Lewis's thoughts on this in Perelandra).
To some extent, I think varying levels of masculinity or femininity are just a normal part of the way we were created as humans, along the lines of different talents.
And while I agree with the "Chromosomes" and "Attitude" parts of your formula, I disagree with the "appearances and aesthetics" portion. Trying to embody an aesthetic of some kind, consistently, would be a performance from me, not anything genuine, unless, of course, you consider "tangled hair and clutter" an aesthetic. I relate to CS Lewis in Surprised By Joy: "I am one of those on whom Nature has laid the doom that whatever they buy and whatever they wear they will always look as if they had come out of an old clothes shop." (Not to say anything against thrift stores, which I love.)
It is not that I am incapable of being beautiful, but I'm a bit clumsy in matters of the visual-spatial, just as some struggle to sing in tune and others can't see colors quite well. I had to learn in my teens to be content with this weakness, which includes masculine pursuits like driving a stick shift, as well as feminine ones like crocheting or making a room look nice. Of course, like anything, I could put more effort into having beautiful hair or beautiful handwriting, but how much effort do I put in before it becomes a performance? And isn't that effort better used to develop the things that come to me more naturally, my gifts? They include both feminine pursuits (caring for children, writing, and a developing cooking skill) and more neutral or perhaps masculine ones (hiking, studying transit systems, debate). But none of them has to do with appearances.
You argue against women who say that what matters is in their heart. But what is in the heart will lead to fruit. I think the fruit of my belief in womanhood shows up in the way I am learning to speak to children, singing loudly in church, the smiles I offer to others, the kindness, gentleness, and self-control (amongst others) I am developing. But this belief is not apparent by my threadbare skirt or faded sweater or oversized jeans or whatever is going on with my hair at the moment.
Hello! thank you for your comment. . . it's very well thought out. And yes, Peralandra has some great insights on this - really feel like Lewis had a very balanced view on femininity in his day that shows through beautifully in his fiction.
I by no means suggest that appearance and aesthetics matter OVER the other things, just that they are of great importance too. Otherwise conservative Christianity would have no grounds on which to be upset at a man in a dress. But this is not to suggest that Beauty needs to fit the standards of society in all its strictest structures. For instance modern society influenced by the porn industry would say that women need to put on the makeup and shave their legs to be beautiful. Or the Victorian era would say that women should have tight corsets. Both instances are also no different in reality from getting a boob job or Botox - it changes then actual woman into a commercial commodity. That is not what I'm talking about here. So yes, the clumsy woman with frizzy, undyed hair is beautiful by all standards of appearance and aesthetic too, because she looks like a woman according to the overarching principles of scripture and tradition.
What is in the heart does matter - it's just not an excuse to exhibit no virtues. But it sounds like you are exhibiting the "fruits of the spirits" -- your works are matching what you claim to have you in heart, and even is made MORE apparent in threadbare skirt and faded sweaters and virgin hair - womanly hallmarks than are attractive to anyone who is not influenced by the ways of the world.
Another thing the woke do better (on the whole, at least in my experience) - being emotionally literate in relationships and having healthier communication. So many Christian marriages with controlling, passive aggressive wives and/or immature touchy proud husbands
> THEIR CROWD WAS DOING A BETTER JOB AT PRESERVING FEMININITY THAN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. AND THEY WERE MAKING IT LOOK LIKE FUN.
Isn't that because they viewed it as cosplay? The much more populous crowd with the same ideology but not interested in that cosplay does exactly the opposite.
they might have the wrong view, but they’re answering a question we’re ignoring and that’s what I’m writing about. My place isn’t to judge the liberal crowd but to turn over tables in my own community
“We abandoned the spindle for the voting booth and found that we no longer had a place of our own anymore.” What a great line.
I do find it encouraging how there is such a hunger for the Real amidst so much confusion, so much fakery. Real community, real bread, real milk, real dances—which all point toward and participate in Reality. How ironic that many folks feel they must engage in cosplay in order to recover a lost sense of, well, order and beauty. (I remember how beautiful my fellow Rennies became when they switched from T-shirts and jeans into their bodices and doublets.)
I'm reading Owen Barfield right now, and I think one could say that today there's a longing for what he calls “original participation” with reality—we suspect that the world is not simply dead matter or a whirring machine. Dirt is alive. The spheres sing.
Barfield also writes of the old principle of what Lewis described as having one's “insides on the outside”: The understanding of the human soul and its (or her, I should say, hearkening to the medieval understanding of the soul as feminine in relation to God) telos, and masculinity and femininity in particular, will be reflected in our clothing, architecture, and indeed, overall disposition and bearing.
I'm reminded of the encouragement I found years and years ago reading Rod Dreher's 'Crunchy Cons'—I was introduced to so much good stuff therein, including Eric Brende's work. I'm also always encouraged by my family, wherein I know courageous, competent men who are true husbandmen, and women who love sewing dresses for their daughters, making raw milk cheese and kefir, letting their children ride horses in the woods, and hosting all-are-welcome meals and psalm sings and barn dances.
Have you read John Senior? I think if he and John Seymour had ever befriended each other they would have shaken things up even more than they did separately.
Thank you!
Near to my area is a local back-to-the-land group that holds potlucks and skillsharing events. And I love to be around the ladies there— they wear their natural hair long, sew dresses and make shoes for their children, and cook food with whole ingredients and meat. They have broad smiles that beam over their entire face, and they are knowledgable about the land, the seasons, history, science, literature. Some of them are Christians, some pagans, some queer. And like you said, they make being a woman look fun.
Unfortunately, the Christian women I know are not all like that. Though the women at my church are mostly kind and feminine, their demeanor makes being a woman look nothing but sacrificial. When I talk to them, toting diaper bags, prepackaged baby snacks, and children named after their father’s side of the family, I’d much rather be a man. At least the men get to smoke cigars and laugh.
Children named after their fathers side of their family?
Yes. I'm all for the patriarchy but the idea that the mother's line essentially ceases when she takes her husband's name is kind of weird. It seems unnecessary for all your kids to be named after their father and paternal grandparents when they already have their father's last name.
I don't really understand where you're coming from I guess? I don't mind the last name thing because it isn't about patriarchy in my mind, but something more archaic (which family are you under to be taxed, drafted, etc). Women traditionally weren't taxed and drafted, so they didn't carry on the last names. I don't think it was a social construct to put men over women. Personally, I prefer the days where nobody had last names, but since we now live in a culture that drafts and taxes its citizens very heavily, there's no getting away from that as thoroughly as one might like. Either way, I'm okay with the burden of war and tax being on the men's shoulders.
I agree, and I see where my original comment was likely confusing-- I meant children with first names and middle names honoring their father, because the father gets to chose the names of 𝘩𝘪𝘴 progeny. There is nothing wrong with the name thing, in and of itself; I was mainly trying to illustrate the lives of women in my circle. They seem sad. They definitely are belittled. And it doesn't have to be this way: women can be housewives, they can be submissive, and still be distinguished matriarchs with their own beautiful and celebrated glories.
We are constantly challenged by interactions with the diversity of our neighbors (ethnically, religously-or not, socially, politically and otherways) and appreciate the perspectives and conclusions you have written. This needs to be heard, read and talked across a broad spectrum (religious and not) of society! Thank you
Great stuff. Woke me up a bit.
Late to the party again...
How do you define "woke"? Is it a sub culture, or is it political/sociological views?
I read your description of these women and the adjectives that came to mind were hippie or crunchy. Woke brings to mind something very different for me: though I recognize a lot of crunchy and hippie women have liberal political and social views, woke brings to mind the realm of angry college students, academics spinning abstractions that they then try to treat as reality, and people who hate their lot in life but aren't sure who to actually be angry at.
I'm not sure if that's a cultural difference (maybe the people in my corner of the country who are liberal leaning just tend to be angrier/academic) or a definitional one.
By woke I mean "into the trans stuff". Some of them are angry, though a lot of my friends who are woke are finding peace by getting into plants, baking, and sewing. Some of them are college students and super into academia (or leaving that world). They are lesbians, angry feminists, and gay men in dresses. But they are figuring out something that the Christian community isn't facing, from what I've experienced when spending time with them.
Makes sense. Thank you.
This is *fascinating*! After reading Wendell Berry's thoughts on the art of husbandry, and feeling disappointed that he doesn't say much about wifery (for lack of a better term) as the practically and artistically necessary counterpart, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what real womanhood means for wifehood, and to what extent sex/gender is necessary for or proper to the art of husbandry/wifery.
Oh, Keturah, how you do make me think!! Years ago...like 2002...My husband and I met a group that the women wore beautiful hand made skirts, long hair, healthy food, etc. They danced and sang, their hair and skirts flowing out behind them. I was a DJ at a local radio station at the time, working in a world of male dominance and with men who perhaps more than in other fields, felt like they could flirt with and harass women. I loved this other community and dreamed of joining up with them, spending every day off among the women cooking, playing with babies and learning about home schooling. I remember going to the store trying to find something that flowed like their dresses - something beautiful. But, like Squirrelly's comment down below, fashion and beauty have eluded me most of my life, and the combination I arrived home with was far from what I'd seen there. But I began to sew my own clothes and bit by bit emerged into this very feminine style of dress, imagining myself dancing away in my flowing skirts.
We never did join that community, but we joined others and moved around a bit. 13 years later we went back to that specific one. What a change had taken place. For one thing everyone was 13 years older. The toddlers were now teenagers, the young newlyweds were now in their 30s. The tired, weariness on their faces was shocking. There was no dancing, very little singing, no babies, no toddlers. Not a whole lot of joy, even though it was a celebration night. Everyone was going through the motions. The teens seemed to speak in a monotone - not the idealistic zeal of their parents from years ago. I myself was pregnant with child number 7 and also weary with my life, also going through the motions.
I make this comment just to say that yes, these young communities of idealists perhaps may have something, but the day in day out trials of life as a woman bearing and raising children, loving one man, struggling to keep the home, to keep ideals, it's not always pretty.
Don't forget that just like those men desiring to be transformed into women, those women in leggings are souls longing to break free as well. Perhaps free from the constraints of legalistic religion where a woman is told to dress and cover her body yet the men go far beyond the verbal harassment I experienced years ago. A woman told all her life to cover her body, to hide her curves, her womanliness from the eyes of men may perhaps one day wish she was a man - wish she could stand up for herself and not be walked all over.
Hello Rebecca,
this is unfortunately all too common in christian circles, or can be. It's a very sad thing - our faith and our works are both contingent upon the health of our community and our church, and it's just very hard to get away from that in the day to day matters, especially when we are exhausted and stuck in a rhythm. This is why spiritual revivals became so popular in the church during the 70s onward. Beauty and aesthetics are not enough in any group if they are pursued a lone. They are what draw people toward us, and what makes us stand out as something peculiar and desirable. But there also must be something deeper that can withstand the tempest. Our faith is inspired by beauty, and beauty is nourished by communion. When communion fails, beauty becomes a show, and when beauty becomes a show our faith will waver. This is why it is important to know the principles but to love all men equally - whether it is a man in a dress or a woman in a pair of leggings, they are looking to see if our faith can stand the test of time. They are looking to see if we are hiding our curves (which I would never, ever advise), or if we are living fully free in our femininity without making ourselves a sex object (the woman in leggings or a bikini, and the woman in a baggy dress are really both doing this, and it's not something to judge except to judge ideologically. Rather our compassion much bring woman to a place where they feel free from the abuse of evil men while also feeling empowered to be beautiful (see my reply below, I don't mean to implement standards of societal fashion here.)
To some extent, I am with you. Masculinity and femininity are deeply real, and matter alongside the bare-bones biological "male" or "female." (I love CS Lewis's thoughts on this in Perelandra).
To some extent, I think varying levels of masculinity or femininity are just a normal part of the way we were created as humans, along the lines of different talents.
And while I agree with the "Chromosomes" and "Attitude" parts of your formula, I disagree with the "appearances and aesthetics" portion. Trying to embody an aesthetic of some kind, consistently, would be a performance from me, not anything genuine, unless, of course, you consider "tangled hair and clutter" an aesthetic. I relate to CS Lewis in Surprised By Joy: "I am one of those on whom Nature has laid the doom that whatever they buy and whatever they wear they will always look as if they had come out of an old clothes shop." (Not to say anything against thrift stores, which I love.)
It is not that I am incapable of being beautiful, but I'm a bit clumsy in matters of the visual-spatial, just as some struggle to sing in tune and others can't see colors quite well. I had to learn in my teens to be content with this weakness, which includes masculine pursuits like driving a stick shift, as well as feminine ones like crocheting or making a room look nice. Of course, like anything, I could put more effort into having beautiful hair or beautiful handwriting, but how much effort do I put in before it becomes a performance? And isn't that effort better used to develop the things that come to me more naturally, my gifts? They include both feminine pursuits (caring for children, writing, and a developing cooking skill) and more neutral or perhaps masculine ones (hiking, studying transit systems, debate). But none of them has to do with appearances.
You argue against women who say that what matters is in their heart. But what is in the heart will lead to fruit. I think the fruit of my belief in womanhood shows up in the way I am learning to speak to children, singing loudly in church, the smiles I offer to others, the kindness, gentleness, and self-control (amongst others) I am developing. But this belief is not apparent by my threadbare skirt or faded sweater or oversized jeans or whatever is going on with my hair at the moment.
Hello! thank you for your comment. . . it's very well thought out. And yes, Peralandra has some great insights on this - really feel like Lewis had a very balanced view on femininity in his day that shows through beautifully in his fiction.
I by no means suggest that appearance and aesthetics matter OVER the other things, just that they are of great importance too. Otherwise conservative Christianity would have no grounds on which to be upset at a man in a dress. But this is not to suggest that Beauty needs to fit the standards of society in all its strictest structures. For instance modern society influenced by the porn industry would say that women need to put on the makeup and shave their legs to be beautiful. Or the Victorian era would say that women should have tight corsets. Both instances are also no different in reality from getting a boob job or Botox - it changes then actual woman into a commercial commodity. That is not what I'm talking about here. So yes, the clumsy woman with frizzy, undyed hair is beautiful by all standards of appearance and aesthetic too, because she looks like a woman according to the overarching principles of scripture and tradition.
What is in the heart does matter - it's just not an excuse to exhibit no virtues. But it sounds like you are exhibiting the "fruits of the spirits" -- your works are matching what you claim to have you in heart, and even is made MORE apparent in threadbare skirt and faded sweaters and virgin hair - womanly hallmarks than are attractive to anyone who is not influenced by the ways of the world.
Another thing the woke do better (on the whole, at least in my experience) - being emotionally literate in relationships and having healthier communication. So many Christian marriages with controlling, passive aggressive wives and/or immature touchy proud husbands
Sorry, you got me at the spindles! So much of what you talk about is what the back to the land movement wanted in the 70s.
Aw, I love how much fun you had at the folk school!! Beautiful reflections.
> THEIR CROWD WAS DOING A BETTER JOB AT PRESERVING FEMININITY THAN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. AND THEY WERE MAKING IT LOOK LIKE FUN.
Isn't that because they viewed it as cosplay? The much more populous crowd with the same ideology but not interested in that cosplay does exactly the opposite.
they might have the wrong view, but they’re answering a question we’re ignoring and that’s what I’m writing about. My place isn’t to judge the liberal crowd but to turn over tables in my own community