I have to say that I’m glad Jana said something as the same thoughts did crossed my mind concerning the picture. I just ignored them and went along with the conversation. =?

Well, you could have taken a picture from the Congo (which would still have put you in Africa – and for all *I* know, the picture you used came from that area anyway) – where women and children are being raped on a daily bases. Yes, it just so happens that they are of dark skin (black) but of course, it’s about the violence and the evil of that violence (because of human nature) and not about race.

Not to mention the fact that in these places of the world, there is no justice for these victims. Whether they are beaten, raped or both and more. Where (locally) do they go to get help?

Places like America, England and so on – we DO have a justice system that works for the victim. No – the system is not perfect AND many do get off which is abhorrent. However, although men like this exist everywhere, in every country, in every culture, in every race (because human nature affects us all), at least in places like America, there are orginizations where women can go and turn to for help. It wasn’t always that way. My paternal grandmother was abused by my grandfather – who died before I was born – and this was in the 1920′s, 30′s AND 40′s! He beat her and his kids. Was even going to sacrifice my father to God (my dad got away when his siblings snuck him out a window). Yeah, he was one screwed up guy. Where was my grandma going to go? There was no where for her TO go back then.

Because of people like my grandmother, thankfully others realized – it was indeed their business to step up and protect their fellow human being and laws were changed, organizations were formed.

No, I’m not trying to make this a “my country is better than your country” argument. It’s just that we HAVE come a long way with our judicial system in protecting the victims of abuse where as other places have not. Honestly, that’s exactly what went through my mind when I saw the picture you posted – yes, we’ve won some good battles here against this kind of violence but our job is not done. Not here and especially not in places like parts of Africa where they have obviously NOT come as far as we have.

I understand Jana’s point however all the pictures she linked to were posed. I related to woman in the original post way more than any of the linked pictures because her pain was real. (at least in my eyes) I never thought about her being a woman from rural Africa. I thought ouch… this really depicts the shame women experience; her on the ground, in the dust, in her sweet dress made a statement none of the other pictures were able to make.

Hi Julie – What makes you think the picture is from the DRC? The lack of an fully funded civil society is a problem of course and so is the lack of law enforcement and judicial infrastructure. The historical economic and political causes for this lack are another conversation altogether. We could have along discussion about that but I suppose my concern in this instance is less with what you’ve said but more as to the relevance of those points to Jason’s blog post, which was not about the developing/developed world divide and gender-related violence. It was about gender roles in the western church. And gender-related violence is still deeply rooted in western society. 1 in 4 women in the UK (don’t know stats for states sorry) experience domestic violence. The conviction rate for rape in the UK is still only 6%.

Hi Jenell, My response to your point would be that the original post wasn’t really even about domestic violence, but hidden, structural violence? I would suggest that the Dolce & Gabana photo epitomises the sort of sanitised violence which is most relevant to the post?

Also your characterisation of the woman “in her sweet dress”, adds to the sense of victimisation which is unhealthy given the history of infantilization of African people and cultures. It’s not deliberate or malicious but I do think it’s unhealthy.

The intersection of race and gender is complicated for sure but to imagine that race no longer exists is nonsensical (though I do agree it is to a greater degree than gender, a social construct). The point is that the picture lets us off the hook. It allows us to think of the man as a barbarian (not like me) and the woman as a sweet victim (not like me). It’s easier to do that because of the setting is not familiar. There is always a danger (Bell Hooks writes excellently on this) that we a) get fooled into thinking that gender issues affect the developing world and ethnic minorities and not developed Europeans, and b) in trying to liberate women in the developing world we dis-empower them by belittling their culture & society.

Now of course I am extrapolating a huge distance from one image (the post was entirely unrelated!) and a couple of comments, but that’s where the conversation goes in my head at least!

Now that’s obviously a lot of thinking when looking for a picture to go with a blog post! I’ve been there and I know what a pain it can be to find something that fits a page or a piece. So I did make it clear that I didn’t want to accuse Jason of anything at all really, just to voice some discomfort and to see if it stuck.

Hi Jana,
Just a quick clarification and then a comment. You said: “my concern is…to the relevance of those points to Jason’s blog post, which was not about the developing/developed world divide and gender-related violence. It was about gender roles in the western church.”

Actually, I wasn’t writing about gender roles in the “Western” church, I was writing about gender roles in the Church. Nowhere in my post do I make any regional or cultural distinctions where the problem of gender violence and patriarchy are concerned.

Lastly, as to you remarks to Jenell: First, I’m not sure there’s an easy distinction between domestic violence and structural violence (which, I understand you to mean systemic violence). They go hand in hand. But more importantly, I don’t Jenell’s comment about the woman’s dress qualifies as infantilization. To interpret them that way requires a fairly uncharitable assumption. Given her comments on the whole, her point was clearly to express empathy, not condescension – which I’m sure you would agree is vitally important in an issue like this, particularly where cross-cultural realities exist.

Hi Jason, sorry, but the article was built on a set of examples of which none were from anywhere outside of America? If we want to talk about The Church we have to at least talk about the biggest chunk of it which is to be found in the global south? The issues may be similar but as Julie described so eloquently they are not the same.

Patriarchy is a problem for the Church, but so is geographic if not racial inequality. Women from the south suffer from a diminished voice as a result of both patriarchy and cultural hegemony. It is possible that in trying to fix the one we will exacerbate the other (which I think applies in both directions). What I’m trying to say is, there are distinctions, if you omit them it just makes them all the more destructive for being unexamined.

Actually, the pentecostal examples come from my family’s experiences with churches and ministers in and from the U.S., Brazil, Africa, India, and Haiti. The fact that I didn’t specify this is an example of how my post reflected a sense of cultural universality. I wasn’t trying to highlight cultural distinctions, I was trying to highlight one aspect of the global Church’s commonality. All Christians everywhere, to greater and lesser degrees, live in a form of patriarchy and all Christians are likely to see that patriarchy reflected in scripture.

Now, I think you’re larger concern about omitting cultural distinctions is very important when attempting to deal with the finer points of these sociological problems, but in a (very brief) post about a common problem it would seem odd to belabor cultural distinctions. Moreover, the point of article was not about how we might prescriptively deal with gender violence (which would absolutely require drilling down into cultural distinctions and the unique local challenges associated with those distinctions), but rather about the difficulty of these issues in light of our shared tradition of valuing scripture and – this is where my post was culturally specific – how we, as Postmoderns, might approach biblical hermeneutics differently with that scriptural gender bias in mind.

So, since global Christian patriarchy was the backdrop of a post about hermeneutics, I could easily argue that the picture is highly appropriate as a depiction of global Christian patriarchy and it’s consequences in and through gender violence, since the global Church is predominantly African and South American, since strong Christian Patriarchy is predominantly African and South American, and since gender violence itself is predominantly African and South American. Indeed, the least appropriate image for depicting the reality of socially acceptable gender violence rooted in Christian patriarchy would be a white, Western image.

Hi Jason,

I get your point and as I have said before I really don’t want to have a go at your article. You are right it’s a blog post and about a specific thing and you can’t justify every possible angle or interpretation whenever you do or say anything. Of course not!

Also, sorry I didn’t see the last paragraph of your first response. As I said, I am not saying that Janell had that in mind in any sense. And empathy is important of course and that’s great. I understand where you’re coming from and respect that your rationale is pure hearted.

Lastly, a clarification of my own, I am pretty sure that I mean structural and not systemic. It’s the nature not the prevalence of the violence which I was trying to distinguish.

I just don’t see that kind of use of cultural universality as particularly valid. On your points re. the point of the article (which to be fair to you has probably undergone undue scrutiny) which was on our approach to scripture.

Finally, re. the assertions you make about African and South American churches. What do you base that on? That is the underlying assumption which I wanted to challenge in the first place! And even if it is true, it does not make the image any more appropriate unless you were embedded in a rural African context. It may have been just as troublesome for a city-dwelling pastor in Jo’burg or Accra to use the image just the same.

Thanks for those points Jana! No need for apologies. This is a good and important exercise.

I guess, I’m not sure what you mean by structural violence. Perhaps you could unpack that a bit. I was concerned here with systemic violence – by which I meant the inequalities inherent in cultural understandings of power and its corresponding institutions – and, in particular, how this is implicitly condoned by simplistic readings of scripture.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “I just don’t see that kind of use of cultural universality as particularly valid.” Why not? Isn’t it necessary at times to speak universally and in generalities? For example, all cultures are patriarchal, all cultures deal with male violence, and all Christianity is rooted in biblical literature. Isn’t it important to begin with such commonalities on an issue like this and then move toward the particulars? Don’t we risk sacrificing empathy and humility by skipping this step?

African and South American cultures (closely followed by some Asian cultures) have the highest rates of violence against women in the world according to a 1997 World Health Organization study. In the United States nearly 25% of women have experienced intimate partner violence (see here and here). Compare this to Namibia where the rates are 36% (which is far lower than many Asian and South American countries), in Tanzania the rates are 56%, and in Ethiopia the rates are 71% (the highest of all countries surveyed, followed closely by Peru at 69%). Moreover, the rural rates of violence are significantly higher than urban rates of violence. Japan was the only country lower than the United States at 15% (although, that was an urban survey, so the rural rates are likely higher there too, which would skew the numbers back up overall).

On your last point, it sounds like you’re saying critique must always come from within. But I am “embedded” in humanity, so doesn’t that give me a place to critique other unjust humans? It’s true that “humanity” is a general term, but so is “African” and “Ethiopian” and “Amhara” for that matter. At what point am I “embedded” enough to validly lodge a critique? Must I be not only part of the nation, but part of the tribe? Must I be part of the family? Or, am I limited to critiquing the injustices of those who are American, white, male, brown-haired, left-handed, middle-aged, married, educated, lower middle-class, etc., etc. If all critique must come from within then I cannot even critique myself, for even that which convicts me internally comes from without.

Doesn’t my inclusion in our common humanity, along with a universalizing of the problem (after all, saying the U.S. “only” has a rate of 25% is hardly a vindication), essentially open the arena for everyone to critique this problem, wherever it exists, simply on the basis of what is just?

I have been following this discussion and decided I would jump in and put in my two cents.

Jason, My first thought when I read your first article with the picture was that the picture did not go with the article for EXACTLY the reasons Jana mentioned. I am not good at expressing my thoughts as eloquently as Jana so I was happy when she did and you posted this whole thread! I also thought Jana’s pictures were far more appropriate for exactly the reasons she states in her reply to Jenell.

Your article, at least to me, seemed to focus on the church in America and I have known many friends over the years who were abused by their husbands and the pastor in each situation quite often looked the other way or blamed the wife.

Because of those experiences I decided to volunteer as a victims advocate. To do this I first had to spent 60 hours sitting in a class learning all about violence against women from all the local experts including police officers, the district attorney’s office, counselors who work with abused women, psychologists who counsel both the abusers and those they abuse, mental health workers, social workers and people who run shelters for abused women and their children. I then spent 12 months going on domestic abuse calls and meeting the police with the victim either at the scene of the crime or at the police station. I also spent many hours working with the women at the shelter, and answering the hot line for domestic violence.

What I found is that even in this situation people still seem to blame the victim, even those put there to supposedly help them! Also, many people I encountered including women still see domestic violence against women as the woman’s fault because she does not leave the abuser. WOMEN have more than once expressed to me that they think the woman is weak or just too ignorant to leave the abuser or cares more about money and that’s why she won’t leave. These comments always make me want to SCREAM!!!!

The reasons women stay are varied and are far more complicated than I want to get into here but believe me when I say, there is little compassion or sympathy from many men and women I encountered. In fact, based on my experience this attitude may be MORE prominent in Christian men and women, and especially in women in your age bracket or younger.

Again, because your article seemed to me to be talking about the church in America and it’s role in perpetuating violence against women I thought Jana’s “Dolce & Gabana” photo was a far better choice than the one you put up and better depicts the situation here in American and the church as a whole.

In contrast, when I saw your picture my first thought went to Rawanda and the violence that happened to woman there which is a whole other article all together and interestingly garner far more compassion and sympathy from the above mentioned people groups than did my domestic violence victims!

I forgot to add that in answer to your question at the end of your first article, I believe the way we as a society and the American church has translated the bible and taught that women should be subservient to men has perpetuated the abuse I have seen against women in the American church. Thus again stating that Jana’s pictures were far more appropriate in my opinion for this article than yours was:)

@Denise – What you wrote about how we blame women for violence is so true, and so very sad.

Granted, if the article was about issues of patriarchy in the American Church the picture would be inappropriate. I don’t disagree. But I wasn’t writing about the American Church. I was writing about global Christianity and global patriarchy and how Christians (globally) justify the latter through scripture.

I understand that you both thought I was writing about the American Church, but was that a perspective I communicated or was it an assumption you made? Do we automatically assume American Church (or Western Christianity) when we hear the work “church?” (I think we often do). Or did you assume American Church because I am an American? Or was it because the only explicit example I gave referred to Ohio? If so, shouldn’t the picture have counterbalanced the Ohio reference and helped set a global tone?

And finally, knowing now that I was in fact writing about global Christianity and global patriarchy, do you still think the picture is inappropriate given that these problems are far more endemic to African and South American cultures?

Well here’s my little bit of input. Until I had read the comments following the original post I didn’t even realize that the photo was showing “violence” against women. I even went back to review the photo & I still don’t immediately view the photo as being a representation of violence. It could just as easy be a man rushing to assist a woman who had tripped & fallen. Is this because I am an old white guy & trapped in my cultural literacy? Am I ignorant or naive?

Oh yeah – I also never assumed that the photo was from Africa or South America. It looks like places I have seen in photos of the poorer areas of the southern United States.

The original posting was not about “violence” towards women but seemed to be about the “patriarchial” bent of the Christian church. Did I read it wrong? Was I not supposed to be thinking about the way I have been taught my whole life to determine if maybe the teaching was wrong?

It was not until the comments by the blog readers that the issue of “violence” was even broached. At that time it seemed the discussion became more of discussion regarding violence than regarding thought/attitudes/beliefs & belief systems.

@Jana – is it possible that what you saw in the photo (& I did not) is because you are a woman? It seems that other female readers, & some males, did interpret the photo the same as you.

@Jason – did you see in this photo what Jana did? If so then why would you choose a photo depicting “violence” in a blog about gender roles? Were you equating the “christian” gender roles with “violence” toward women? It didn’t seem that way in my reading of the blog.

I look forward to your responses.

Grace,
Michael

Denise:

“I thought Jana’s “Dolce & Gabana” photo was a far better choice than the one you put up and better depicts the situation here in American and the church as a whole.”

Really? I thought the first and last pic she linked to were the pictures that depicted actual violence (although I still believe Jason’s choice was the better one because – as he said – he didn’t want to show the faces *however* despite all that, you could still understand the evil and violence going on and the desperation of that woman).

Quite frankly – with the middle picture (““Dolce & Gabana”) – it looks like an ad – of bad taste, might I add – from a high profiled shop like “The Gap” trying to sell clothing through one of the usual sales pitches – sex (which apparently it is a shop like that). I could see why someone would choose that picture as an example of men being forceful and controlling over women. However, honestly? The first thoughts that went through my head when I saw that photo was, “That is so wrong on MANY levels.” – and the top reasons had nothing to do with violence. The woman’s face wasn’t battered or bruised (although abuse CAN certainly be without the *physical* aspect) and don’t even get me started on the leather. Quite frankly, the picture image didn’t look like a group of guys AGAINST one woman – it looked like a group of guys WITH one woman….I’ll let your imaginations run with that one.

Good questions Jason:)

You know I re-read the article again before I posted my first comment because I wanted to make sure I didn’t misunderstand where you were coming from and I STILL got the impression that you were talking about the American church!

After I read your response here again stating that you were talking GLOBALLY I read the article a third time thinking “what am I missing”?

I am sorry but It STILL sounds to me like you are only talking about the American church, and here is why I think that.

1)You start out referencing “Youth Group” and because that is such a big part of the American church (meaning a lot of people in American pick the church they go to based on the programs for their kids and particularly how good they perceive the “youth group” to be I automatically think of the American church. I personally wouldn’t know if this is as big deal in churches in Africa since they have a different culture than ours. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

2)You then proceed to talk about YOUR experience growing up in YOUR American church.

3) You then talk about Pentecostal churches you have OBSERVED and since I don’t remember you doing a lot of missionary traveling abroad I assumed you were again talking about Pentecostal churches in America.

4) You then go on to give examples of a Methodist church in OHIO.

5) Then you use Jenell’s place of work and the Jews she knows at work as examples. Which also happens to be here in America.

So that is why I thought you were only talking about the church culture here in America.

I would think also that because of our varying different cultures around the world that the problems and issues and degrees of those problems could be quite different depending on the culture the church is in.

Yes, I agree with you that these problems would seem to be far more endemic to Africa and South America than here in America in which case I think the picture would have been appropriate:)

Maybe I will be so arrogant as to suggest you re-write the article…………………………………I think I can hear you laughing now:)

@Denise – Maybe I will be so arrogant as to suggest you re-write the article…………………………………I think I can hear you laughing now:)

Mother’s perogative

Michael

Jana:

“What makes you think the picture is from the DRC?”

Nothing. My point was simply that the pic could have been taken from anywhere. I mentioned the Congo simply because of the evil violence that goes on daily without any justice in sight.

For all I know – the man and woman could be actors in an outdoor drama somewhere and someone writing a critique about it took the picture to go with their article.

Michael, You made me LOL with your comments on the picture in your first paragraph.:) It is probably just a different perspective from a different set of eyes.

I also agree with you Michael about this not so much being about violence against women The original posting was not about “violence” towards women and more about the “patriarchal” bent of the Christian church. And yet that is what I got from it BECAUSE of the picture. Poor Jason:P

Julie, I so agree with you!! I realized AFTER I hit “post” that the picture I quoted would have been my LAST choice and the others were far better for the same reasons you state. I just didn’t want to go back and post ANOTHER add on to my original post:) Leave it to you to pick up on that! I can’t ever slip ANYTHING by you:P

@Denise – You make some great points! I did make several Western references. Although, you of all people should know I have been out of the country several times myself, particularly to Brazil and Mexico and others in my household have been to Haiti, Panama, and Liberia. When you add close friends of ours living in countries like India, Afghanistan, Uganda, South Africa, Mongolia, Russia, and the U.K., I’d say we have a pretty global perspective in the Coker home : )

@Michael – Good question. The post wasn’t explicitly about physical violence, I was definitely trying to insinuate – by the picture – that patriarchy is both a non-physical form of gender violence and often leads to physical violence.

Thanks Jason, I think it’s important too, I don’t want anyone to read accusation, which would be terrible Missed quite a lot there here are a few clarifications and responses in no particular order.

RE. the picture: The Dolce and Gabana picture for me is a pretty clear allusion to rape. The woman is looking away, her posture is resistant and the guy is holding her down while the others watch!

Re: Structure vs systemic. Maybe there is a bit of a transatlantic translation problem going on, or maybe I am just a bit slow! What you describe as systemic I would describe as structural. I would think of say systemic is more like endemic, rather than violence perpetrated by the structure itself, systemic for me, is violence which is supported, encouraged or caused by the structure but is perpetrated by individuals. Take violence against African Americans pre 70′s, that was systemic, the poor schools, low investment and unhealthy ways of talking about race (among other things) were structural?

Re violence in the global south. Firstly are the figures controlled for economic factors? Probably not. You mention that rural violence is higher. Is the connection economics or culture or probably both?

Re my demographic: Just to clarify my demographic as it’s entered the conversation! I know Jana is a girls name in Eastern Europe but I am a Sri Lankan born British raised man! Domestic violence is not an impersonal issue for me and while I diligently follow Jesus in ensuring that the cycle of violence does not continue to another generation, I also recognise and respect the strength of my mother’s choices. I have grappled with the reasons (reasons are not excuses but they are reasons) and I am in no doubt that economic and cultural dis-empowerment is a massive why.

Re embedded critiques: Firstly, there is a difference between universalities and generalities. Second, the important thing here is recognising the power inequality between yourself and the rural African. If we can’t take the Bible to be universally prescriptive (which I assume is your view?), how can we hold onto the, admittedly attractive, position of a universal field of criticism? What are the grounds for that critique if not the Bible? Conscience? In which case there are definitely other unjust-humans who, however distastefully argue that their conscience tells them something different. Conscience can be a strong guide for our own action but what about for critiquing the actions of others? Or perhaps it is just the manipulation of sentiment advocated by Rorty, for generally agreed useful purposes?

How can you have a universal critique when you approach the bible contextually?

I love that Chomsky uses Jesus teaching on “the speck in your neighbours eye” and extrapolates it globally. If we take that teaching and apply it practically here:

a) domestic violence is more prevalent in South America, Africa and Asia
b) domestic violence has viable cultural and economic explanations
c) the economic and cultural inequalities are perpetuated in part due to unjust economic structures which are maintained to our benefit and with our implicit consent.
d) do we critique the things for which we are most directly morally culpable (responsible) or for those things which someone from another culture is most directly culpable.

It has become a trend in liberal circles to pursue injustice’s in the developing world only on the level where they are the responsibility of the local culture. (Female circumcision, the veil, “Humanitarian Interventions” etc.) It seems to me a complete distraction for westerners to even bother talking about domestic violence in the developing world while we sit on the good-side of a system which kills tens of thousands of people (men and women) a day through war and good old fashioned liberal economics.

So, no critique rarely comes from within, the prophets always speak from the margins but never from the outside. If you are trying to take a political stand (which is inevitably what this would be if you take politics in it’s purest sense – people getting together and organising stuff!) It’s most useful to say something about the things and the people which are closest to being your responsibility. I know someone will say well the church is closest to all of our responsibility. Yes, but to imagine that those inequalities do not act right through our global community, is foolish. And as I said earlier, how can we save women from their own culture without marginalising it? If you marginalise it, you marginalise her. The safest course of action is to first remove the causes which are in your power to affect (violent cultural and economic hegemony) and set an example in whatever corner of the body you inhabit. Once all that’s done let’s have another conversation about domestic violence, scripture and the church.

@Jana, Thank you for the wonderful response! I haven’t had the time to properly write back, but I wanted to let you know I’ve appreciated the conversation and will get back to you soon.