Focusing On Authority Misses the Point (How Do Women Serve in the Church?)

22 February, 202531 May, 2025Marissa

I recently read a social media discussion centered on the issue of women in ministry. Without going into too much detail, the original post criticized the idea of “women pastors,” and subsequent comments went in the direction of debating whether or not women had any authority roles in the church. As I read these comments, I started feeling uncomfortable. It’s not as if I’m unfamiliar with this topic or I don’t have my own ideas on whether women are “allowed” to teach, speak, pray, prophecy, or lead in churches (one example: my post “Women Who Speak in Scripture”). But the focus on who gets to have authority struck me as wrong. If we focus discussions like this on who is in charge, I think we’re missing one of the New Testament’s big points about how all Christians are supposed to relate to one another.

Jesus’s Take on Authority

Authority is not a bad thing. Jesus taught with authority, used the authority His father gave Him for good (such as to forgive sins), and currently has “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 7:29; 9:6; 28:18; John 5:27; 10:18). He also clarifies that His authority comes from God–it’s legitimate authority conferred upon Him by the highest authority (John 12:49). As someone with authority, He could and did give His disciples certain authority, such as over unclean spirits (Matt. 10:1).

In these verses, the Greek word translated “authority” is exousia (G1849). Thayer’s dictionary lists several primary meanings: “1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases … 2. physical or mental power … 3. the power of authority (influence) or right (privilege) 4. the power of rule or government.” Like the English word “authority,” it can refer to legitimate, well-wielded authority or it can have a darker side. We see that in a discussion Jesus had with His disciples at least twice: once after James and John asked for authority in His kingdom and once at the Passover when all the disciples debated who would be the greatest after Jesus died.

Now when the other ten heard this, they were angry with the two brothers. But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:24-28, NET

A dispute also started among them over which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves.For who is greater, the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is seated at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Luke 22:24-27, NET

“Authority” in these verses is exousia (or it is in Luke 22; Matthew 20 uses katexousiazo, a derivative meaning “to exercise authority, wield power” [G2715, Thayer]). In this case, it’s talking about people among the nations who have worldly authority. The phrase “lord it over” is another word: kurieuo in Luke 22, which means “to be lord of, to rule, have dominion over” (G2961, Thayer) and katakurieu in Matthew, a related word meaning “to bring under one’s power … to hold in subjection to be master of, exercise lordship over” (G2634, Thayer). It’s definitely not a good thing in this context, and Jesus clearly tells his disciples not to act this way. If you want to be great in His church, then you serve.

When I saw people arguing things like, “How dare women try to get authority over men?” or “I can’t stand that only men get authority, why can’t women like me be in charge?” I thought about these verses. There are certain kinds of authority given to people in the church (and legitimate roles instituted by Jesus or those He taught directly, such as apostle, pastor, and deacon), but if we’re concerned about who gets to lord it over other people then we’re missing the point. No one is supposed to be lording it over other people or coveting a position where they could do that. We’re supposed to be humble and focus on service.

Image of a young woman standing in church reading the Bible overlaid with text from Gal. 5:13, NET version: “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another.” — Image by José Roberto Roquel from Lightstock

Who Can Serve and How?

Maybe instead of asking, “Can women have authority in the church?” we should ask, “Can women serve in the church?” The answer to that is a resounding “Yes!” supported by the examples of many women in the Old and New Testaments. What gets more to the heart of the original debate, though, is the question, “How do women serve in the church?” We have examples to answer that question as well. We know for certain that women in the Bible served God’s people in these ways:

Prophetess (Miriam, Ex. 15:20; Deborah, Jud. 4:4; Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chr. 34:22; Isaiah’s wife, Is. 8:3; Anna, Luke 2:36; Philip’s four daughters, Acts 21:9).
Teacher (King Lemuel’s mother, Prov. 31:1; Priscilla, Acts 18:26; Timothy’s grandmother Lois and mother Eunice [assumed based on context], 2 Tim. 1:5).
Judge/leader (Deborah, Jud. 4:4-9).
Deacon/servant (Phoebe, Rom. 16:1),
Practical caretaker–cooking, sewing, etc. (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and “many others,” Luke 8:2-3; Martha, Luke 10:40; Tabitha, Acts 9:36-39).
Church host (Priscilla [with husband Aquilla], Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Nympha, Col. 4:15; Apphia [with husband Philemon, assumed based on context], Phile. 1:2)
Worker/laborer (Mary, Rom. 16:6; Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis Rom. 16:12).

There may even have been a woman apostle, Junia (Rom. 16:7), but her exact role is so hotly debated that I didn’t put “apostle” on my list (scholars pretty much agree that she was a woman, but not on whether the phrase used in this verse indicates she could have been an apostle). Clearly, women were heavily involved in the church, both in what we think of as “behind the scenes” roles and (apparently more rarely, though female prophets are relatively common) in the more public leading, serving, teaching, preaching roles. When God uses a woman to do something in scripture, we really can’t argue that the church shouldn’t allow women to do those same things today.

Things Women (Probably) Don’t Do

It’s worth noting some of the roles that we don’t see examples of women in. If we look at the lists of ministry gifts/roles in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11, we see “first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:28, NET) and “some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). Let’s use those lists as a guide for examining women’s possible roles in the church.

We might have one possible example of a woman as an apostle, but no specific examples of them as pastors (from the same Greek word translated “shepherd”) or evangelists (Greek word only used 3 times). However, “evangelist” is a title that comes from the Greek verb euaggelizo (G2097), “to bring good news” or preach the gospel (Thayer). It is likely that women did participate in that activity (Acts 8:1-4; Phil 4:2-3). We also don’t have specific examples of women performing miracles or healings. But we know for certain that women can be prophets, that women teach even if not called “teacher” as a title, that they fill helper roles, that they can have leadership-related gifts, and that those at Pentecost spoke in different languages just like the apostles and other men (Acts 1:14; 2:1-4).

It seems, then, that we can say women did not serve as pastors/shepherds in the Bible and that they were not typically apostles or evangelists. The only other church “authority” roles I can think of in the New Testament are elder, bishop/overseer, and deacon/servant. We have a concrete example of a woman as a deaconess/servant, but no women in the overseer role. “Elder” seems to refer to men most of the time, but the feminine version of the Greek word is used in 1 Tim. 5:2. I suspect that when “elder” is used to refer to respected older people in the church it often includes men and women, but when it’s used to refer to an ordained role in the church it typically or exclusively refers to men. That said, we also don’t have any verses directly saying, “women cannot be pastors.”

You might be uncomfortable with how ambiguous I’m being here, but it is deliberate. The need to have hard rules defining what women and men can and cannot do is a product of Western cultural mindset being applied to the Biblical text. We want specific and inflexible rules for things, but Eastern cultures (like those of Biblical writers) see rules differently: “rules apply except when the one in charge says otherwise. Westerners might consider this arbitrary; many non-Western Christians consider this grace” (Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes, Richards & O’Brien, p. 174). As an example, one of the authors of this book recounts a time when he was invited to speak to a group of pastors in Indonesia. He was shocked, knowing the group’s bylaws say pastors must be male, to see a few women in the audience. When he asked about it, he was calmly told, “Yes, and most of them are [male]” (p. 169). The Indonesian man he spoke with saw nothing strange about an exception to the rule. Perhaps Christians at the time Paul wrote Romans would have heard us say, “Women can’t be apostles,” and responded by saying, “That’s right, except for the times when they are apostles.”

Image of three women holding hands to form a circle and pray, overlaid with text from Acts 2:17-18, NET version: “And in the last days it will be,” God says, “that I will pour out my Spirit on all people, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” — Image by Pearl from Lightstock

But What About 1 Timothy 2?

Because we’ve been talking about authority, we need to address 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul wrote, “I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man” (WEB). Seems straightforward enough, until we start looking at the context and Greek words. Paul doesn’t use any of the typical words for authority here, but rather the incredibly rare word authenteō. This word may refer to wrongly used authority and/or could be connected to astrology practiced by some pagan women at the time, but it’s hard to say for sure since this is the only time it’s used in the Bible and it’s rarely used in contemporary writings (“The Strangeness of 1 Timothy 2:12,” Andrew Bartlett). Paul also uses a different phrase, “I don’t permit,” than he typically uses when laying down rules for the churches.

We also should take note of the fact that Timothy was in Ephesus when he received this letter, a church that Paul specifically brought Priscilla and Aquilla into and where he left them to serve (including teaching Apollos when they arrived [Acts 18:18-28]). It makes a whole lot more sense to interpret this as a prohibition against women usurping (KJV), dominating (ASV), or lording it over (TLB) a man (note that “man” is singular in the Greek, not the plural “men”) rather than a general rule that women never speak or have any authority, particularly given how involved some women were in ministry in the New Testament.

This analysis might seem pedantic or as if we’re trying to “get around” this scripture, but when you come across something in Paul’s writings that is hard to understand (and a lot of things are [2 Pet. 3:16-17]) we need to look at how it fits with the rest of scripture. Our interpretation of what he says has to match other things in the Bible. In this case, if scripture shows women consistently involved in various types of ministry work–including, occasionally, what we’d think of as “authority” roles like prophet or church host–then Paul’s words here can’t be a prohibition on women serving in the body of believers. It would go against precedent in the entire Bible–including Jesus’s radical treatment of women as equals and Paul’s own writings about how God views converted men and women on a cosmic scale (1 Cor. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:28)–if Paul were making a blanket declaration against women serving in the church. It is much more likely that he is telling Timothy not to let women in Ephesus do things that men wouldn’t be allowed to do either (e.g. lord it over others in the church or teach things related to astrology).

It seems very strange to me that we pull out a few isolated phrases Paul uses (1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12) and come up with this whole doctrine that women can’t ever teach, speak, or have public roles in the church. What about the whole rest of the Bible? What about how Jesus treated women? It seems just as misguided to me as those who take Paul’s statement, “you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14, NET) to mean that New Covenant Christians don’t have to obey God. We need to be careful about things like this, and test our assumptions (even if they’ve been assumptions for centuries of church history) to make sure they actually fit what God teaches through His word.

Motivated by Service and Humility

Image of two clasped hands, overlaid with blog's title text and the words, "When God uses a woman to do something in scripture, we really can't argue that the church shouldn't allow women to do those same things today. It’s not about who has authority; it’s about serving where God wants us to." — Image by Anggie from Lightstock

As we look at the roles we see women in the Bible filling or not filling, we need to be careful how we conceptualize authority related to those roles. The point isn’t to figure out who is most important (e.g. is it the male pastor or the female prophet?) but to serve God with the gifts He provides in the role He supplies. If God calls a woman to host the church in her home, that’s what she does. If He gives a woman the gift of prophecy, then she’s supposed to prophecy.

Likewise, if He chooses not to place women in the role of ordained pastor, elder, or overseer, that is God’s choice and the New Testament makes it seem like this is indeed the case (at least most of the time). Most men don’t fill those roles either; other roles are more commonly needed in the church. We’re not supposed to be jealous of or resent people who have roles that we think of as more authoritative than us any more than Jesus resents His Father for being greater than Him (to be clear, there is no resentment or competition between Jesus and the Father [John 10:29-30; Phil. 2:5-11]).

Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well.You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,

who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave
Philippians 2:3-7, NET

No one in God’s church is supposed to seek authority roles for the prestige or the power. We should seek to serve with humility, the same way that Jesus modeled. In a healthy church following God’s lead, we’ll filter into the roles most suited to the gifts He has given us (ideally without doctrinal misinterpretation or other people’s “selfish ambition or vanity” blocking someone from what they’re supposed to be doing). It doesn’t always work that way because the church is composed of people–redeemed people working on becoming more like God, but still people who can make mistakes. We need to have patience with each other in that. For example, it is not wrong for me to want churches I’m involved with to let me exercise my teaching gifts (and other women to exercise their gifts), but it is wrong when I feel as if I deserve more recognition and responsibility than I get or when I resent other people who have the opportunity to use their gifts differently than I do.

Two of the things that we’re called to do is submit “to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21, NET) and “through love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13, NET). We’re not called to seek authority or argue about who gets to be in charge. Ultimately, Jesus is the one in charge as head of the church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). The rest of us are here to serve in a variety of different capacities, but all of them characterized by encouragement, love, and humility (see, for example, John 13:35; 2 Cor. 1:24; Eph. 4:1-3; Col. 3:12-13). If we think any of this is about being in charge, claiming authority over others, or getting what we think we’re owed, then we’ve missed the whole point.

Featured image by Shaun Menary via Lightstock

Song Recommendation: “Way Maker” by Mandisa

Click here to learn more about these books or to order a copy.

Women Who Speak In Scripture

12 February, 202212 March, 2025Marissa

One of the things I hoped for when I began a Master’s degree in Rhetoric and Writing at a Christian-founded university was that I’d get a chance to study some Biblical rhetoric. This semester, I’m taking classes on Classic and Contemporary rhetoric. In one of them, we read texts by women written during the Renaissance where they used rhetorical strategies to prove that women have a role in teaching scripture.

It was both fascinating (and a little discouraging) to read Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz using the exact same arguments to defend her ability to teach the scriptures in 1691 that I’ve used in the 21st century. I agree with her that when Paul calls for women to remain quite in church (1 Cor 14:34; 1Tim 2:12), his “prohibition applied only to public speech from the pulpit” not to writing or even to teaching (The Rhetorical Tradition, 2nd ed., p. 788). It’s absurd to think that Paul meant women should never speak or teach when he also gives instructions for how and when it’s appropriate for women to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16) and since he directly instructs women to teach other women (Titus 2:3).

Stepping away from Paul’s writings for a moment, we see examples of women speaking, leading, and teaching throughout scripture. Deborah, the Queen of Sheba, Abigail, Ester, Rahab, and Hannah are all mentioned by de la Cruz, and she could have added Miriam, Ruth, Huldah, Anna, Philip’s daughters, and Priscilla as well. We also read another text in my class from 1666 written by Margaret Fell–one of the earliest Quakers and a highly influential teacher. She points out that there’s no indication in scripture that the apostles despised or rebuked women like Priscilla for teaching (The Rhetorical Tradition, 3rd ed., p. 860). Furthermore, God Himself said that His daughters would prophesy (Acts 2:14-18), so who are human beings to say women should not speak when they’re inspired by the Lord?

Fell also points out something I hadn’t thought of before. Women’s words are recorded throughout scripture and men often base sermons on their words. Fell accused men in the churches of her day of hypocrisy in this area, saying, “you will make a Trade of Women’s words to get money by, and take Texts, and Preach Sermons upon Womens words; and still cry out, Women must not speak, Women must be silent; so you are far from the minds of the Elders of Israel” (The Rhetorical Tradition, 3rd ed., p.865). Even if ministers today aren’t profiting off their work the same way the priests Fell criticizes were, many will still use Biblical women’s words as a sound foundation for teaching while telling modern women not to teach.

Last week, I wrote about a woman from the Bible named Hannah in my post “What Potential Does God See In You?” She’s one of the women whose example and words–including her recorded prayer–are still used to teach people today. God saw her and regarded her with favor though she was initially judged harshly by the priest. And Hannah is far from being the only example of women whom God takes notice of and whom He gives a key role in His plan. Let’s look at some others today.

Image of a woman worshiping, with text from Acts 2:17-18, NET version: “‘And in the last days it will be,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,
and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
and your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy’” — Image by Pearl from Lightstock

Huldah

King Josiah was one of the very few righteous kings in the years following David’s reign over Israel. He became king at just eight years old, and when he was 26 he asked his scribe to make sure the priests had the funds needed to repair the temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 22; 2 Chr. 34). While working in the temple, the priests found a book of the Law. They read it to Josiah, and he tore his clothes in grief when he realized how badly his nation had strayed from following God. He told his advisers, “Go inquire of Yahweh for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found.”

So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the second quarter); and they talked with her.

She said to them, “Yahweh the God of Israel says, ‘Tell the man who sent you to me, “Yahweh says, ‘Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.’” But to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of Yahweh, tell him, “Yahweh the God of Israel says, ‘Concerning the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before Yahweh, when you heard what I spoke against this place, and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard you,’ says Yahweh. ‘Therefore behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace. Your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place.’”
2 Kings 22:14-20, WEB

Though this group included the high priest, he didn’t ask God for advice directly. Prophets and priests had different roles–the priests served in the temple and a prophet or prophetess delivered God’s messages to people. At this time, the go-to person for making inquiries of God was a prophetess named Huldah. She delivered God’s message, and King Josiah listened (2 Kings 23:1-30). There was no question of whether or not God could speak through her because she was a woman; He simply did, and that was that.

Priscilla

The first time in the Bible that we hear of Priscilla and her husband Aquilia is when Paul went to Corinth (Acts 18). They were tentmakers like Paul, and so he stayed with them to practice his trade while he preached Jesus Christ. When Paul left, Priscilla and Aquilia went with him to Caesarea. They stayed in that region while Paul went on to preach in Galatia, and they were there in the city of Ephesus when Apollos showed up.

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus. He was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
Acts 18:24-26, WEB

Here, both Priscilla and Aquilia explained the way of God. She was teaching alongside her husband. In his letters, Paul sends greetings to them both and describes them as his “fellow workers” (Rom. 16:3-4; 1 Co. 16:19-20; 2 Tim. 4:19). Not once does he tell Priscilla to stay silent or stop teaching and let her husband do all the talking. That’s particularly worth noting because sometimes people will argue that Paul’s instruction for women to be silent applies only to wives (the Greek word could be translated either way), but both Priscilla and Huldah were married when they acted as teacher and prophetess. The more evidence we look at, the clearer it becomes that silence for women is situational (e.g. they shouldn’t disrupt church services, and typically don’t hold public/authority roles in the church).

Thoughts for Further Study

Image of two women studying a Bible with the blog's title text and the words "God thinks it's a good thing when women are fully involved in His church, including by speaking and sharing His words." — Image by Ryan Klintworth from Lightstock

There are so many more examples we could look at. We could go to Exodus 15 where Moses’s sister Miriam is called a prophetess. We could turn to Judges 4-5 and read about Deborah the prophetess, a judge and leader of Israel. We can read in 1 Samuel 25 of how Abigail’s words and actions turned King David away from vengeance. Or we could travel in the New Testament to Luke 2 where Anna the prophetess proclaims Jesus to those looking for redemption. Then we could go to Acts and read about Philip’s four daughters who prophesied. We can also look at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans and see how many women he mentions helping forward the gospel including Junia, who is “notable among the apostles,” and Phoebe who is “a servant of the church in Cenchrea” (the word translated “servant” is the same as the one translated “deacon” in 1 Tim. 3).

One of the things I appreciated about both Sor Juana’s and Margaret Fell’s writings is that they were careful about how they used scripture. Rather than saying Paul was wrong or that his words could be dismissed as outdated, they argued from scriptures that Paul’s letters were misinterpreted. That misinterpretation led to hundreds of years of women needing to fight for the roles in modern churches which God already gave us in His Bible. Thankfully, women are far more fully involved churches today than they were several centuries ago. Even so, I still occasionally hear things like, “Is it okay for you to have a blog where you’re teaching? Women shouldn’t do that, you know.”

There are ways that God has different roles for men and women to play (see, for example, Paul’s words on how marriage pictures Christ and the church). This includes some differences in how they serve in the church. Women in the Old Testament didn’t serve as priests in the temple, but they did serve as prophetesses and they continued that role into the New Testament. And while we don’t see women spoken of as pastors or church leaders in the New Testament, they are clearly serving in the congregations and sharing the gospel. It makes sense that there’d be plenty of areas where our serving roles overlap. We’re all children of God and we’re all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26-28). God pours out His spirit on all of us alike, and gives us gifts and roles to serve and build up the church congregations (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 12).

Women have always been closely involved in God’s church and in His plan. They prayed, taught, sang, preached, and followed Jesus. In His time here on earth, He interacted with women as equals in a way that shocked His disciples (John 4:27). He included women in the gospel and pointed out that their actions should be recorded (Mark 14:3-9, for example). Women traveled with Him during His ministry, and they’re the ones He appeared to first after His resurrection and entrusted with taking the news to His disciples (click here to read that account across gospels). In Acts, women and men both received the gospel, got baptized, and endured persecutions together (Acts 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:1-2; 17:4, 12). God even uses feminine imagery for the church as a whole, calling it calling it a Bride fully involved in serving alongside her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. He doesn’t have a problem with women being fully involved in His church; He thinks it’s a good thing.

Want to study this subject further?

Download my free month-long scripture writing program, “Women Who Speak.”

Women Who Speak Download

Featured image by Ben White from Lightstock

Song Recommendation: “Speeding Train” by Jean Watson

Elizabeth Gaskell’s Strong Female Characters

23 July, 20183 August, 2018Marissa

I’m fascinated by female characters who find ways to live life on their own terms within their culture’s ideas of femininity. Many of my favorite “strong female characters” from Classic literature (like those in Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Francess Burney, and Elizabeth Gaskell’s books ) already have a sense of their own worth and, while they may push against certain confining ideas on appropriate female behavior, they don’t hate their own femininity or attack other women for being feminine. When they fight for their rights, they do it as women who are inherently equal to men — not as women trying to be men.

My two latest books for The Classics Club list are both written by Elizabeth Gaskell. North and South is a re-read for me and Cranford was a new one. I decided to blog about these two books together so I wouldn’t be devoting quite so many articles here to book reviews. I’d expected them to have enough similar themes that this would be easy to do (similar to blogging about Cooper’s sea tales together). But I was pleasantly (if somewhat inconveniently) surprised to find out that the two books are very different. Gaskell is a much more versatile writer than I’d been giving her credit for in my mind.

Characters Who Need Each Other

The contrast is immediately apparent. North and South (1855) opens with a wedding while Cranford (1853) opens with the line, “In the first place, Cranford is in possession of the Amazons; all the holders of houses, above a certain rent, are women.” Men are extremely rare and viewed with much suspicion in Cranford, but in the world of North and South most of the action is driven by or centers around men. One might say Cranford is defined by the absence of men and North and South by the actions of men.

That wouldn’t quite be fair to the women of these books, though. Both stories are filled with what I would call strong female characters. They don’t punch things, shoot stuff, or walk around talking about how empowered they are while wearing sexy clothes. But I would submit to you they’re actually better-written and even “stronger” than the female characters who run around modern films insisting they don’t need anyone’s help. Gaskell’s characters model a connected community of both men and women who are stronger together. Read more →

Why Can’t We Just Let Guys Be Mentoring, Nurturing, And Protective Without Giving Them Feminine Labels?

27 November, 201727 November, 2017Marissa

There’s been a big push culturally to erode traditional gender roles; to prove that men and women are equal and equally capable of filling roles that were once assigned to just one sex. For example: that women can pursue successful business careers and men can care for children. Or that women can display strong logic and men can be emotional and nurturing.

But somehow this has backfired on us and cultural expectations of gender are just getting more rigid. That statement probably raised a few eyebrows. We’ve come a long way, many will argue. Women are now accepted in traditionally masculine professions. They don’t have to just stay at home and raise children any more. We have freedom, equality! Besides, gender is just a cultural construct and we can redefine it however we want so those roles aren’t so confining.

That’s not what we’ve done though. Take, for example, the problem of people pushing young children to identify as transgendered (which the American College of Pediatricians defines as “child abuse”). If a child displays traits outside the gender associated with their biological sex, they’re encouraged to get their sex changed. Instead of making it acceptable for a little girl to embrace femininity and enjoy “boy things” like superheroes and tractors, she’s told she’s not really a girl. She’s a boy. In a fit of mass cultural insanity, we’re making social constructions of gender more rigid while trying to make a person’s biological sex something that’s flexible.

Stranger Things’ New “Mom”

I started thinking about this topic (at least in the context of this blog post) when I came across this image while scrolling through Pinterest:Like many Stranger Things fans, Season 2 turned Steve Harrington into one of my favorite characters. For those of you not watching the show, Steve was a stereotypical character in the first season but in Season 2 he got some spectacular character development. He grew from a standard jock into a hero who has a great relationship with the younger main characters. And for some reason that gets him labeled as their “mom” by the Internet. Read more →

Lady Susan: Jane Austen’s Comedic Seductress

10 July, 201720 March, 2018Marissa

Once upon a time (in this particular case the 18th century) quite a few novels were written entirely as series of fictional letters. These were called epistolary novels. Evelina by Frances Burney is one example, but far more well known was Samuel Richardson’s Pamela and Clarissa. Jane Austen had probably read both Burney and Richardson when she penned her own epistolary work, Lady Susan.

In [Richardson’s] fiction, resourceful young women record their efforts to resist the advances of scheming libertines. The young Austen signals her audacity by turning the figure of the predatory male seducer into a highly unconventional (and middle-aged) seductress. — John Mullan in “Does Love & Friendship improve Jane Austen’s ending?“

Don’t ever let anyone tell you Jane Austen was “just a romance novelist.” By the age of 19 or 20 she was perfecting her signature satiric style, turning Richardson’s well-respected style up-side-down, and inverting gender stereotypes for contemporary fiction. Predatory, aggressive, and manipulative women weren’t unheard of in fiction at the time, but making them the most engaging character in a story wasn’t encouraged. Perhaps that’s why she set the manuscript aside, choosing neither to destroy nor publish it (Lady Susan was first published 54 years after Austen’s death).

The story follows recently widowed Lady Susan Vernon. We enter the narrative as she announces her intention to visit her brother- and sister-in-law, Charles and Catherine Vernon, at their country residence. Though not happy to host the woman who tried to prevent her marriage, Mrs. Vernon welcomes her sister-in-law as cordially as possible. She becomes less cordial after her brother Reginald De Courcy arrives to meet “the most accomplished coquette in England” and falls head-over-heels for Lady Susan. And that’s after he’d heard from a reliable source that she’d left her previous residence after seducing the married Mr. Manwaring and stealing Miss Manwaring’s suitor, Sir James Martin, for her own daughter.

The first screen adaptation of this novella came out just last year. Titled Love & Friendship for some inexplicable reason (it’s the title of an unrelated work Austen wrote at age 14), I’m still not quite sure what to make of this film. While it preserves the witty, irreverent comedy of Austen’s novella, I still felt something was off about the adaptation. Transferring letters to dialogue made for some character meetings that didn’t make sense (Lady Susan and Mrs. Johnson wouldn’t have been able to meet in person so often; the companion who arrives with Lady Susan in the film isn’t in the book and only exists here to be talked at). And while several female characters were fleshed out more to help them hold their own on screen with Lady Susan, the male characters became even more buffoonish than in the novella (SPOILER WARNING: Reginald in the film is helplessly manipulated throughout the film, while in the novella, he’s the one to break things off with Lady Susan).

Also, why does every single character introduction stop the action with an out-of-context shot of them overlaid with a description of how they fit in the story? The costuming is beautiful, though, and Kate Beckinsale turns in a fantastic performance as Lady Susan. As in the novella, she’s by far the most interesting character.

I enjoyed reading Lady Susan. I’m a big fan of Jane Austen’s work and this is the first of her writings outside the six major novels that I’ve read. It makes me want to track down more of her juvenilia. It’s fun reading your favorite authors’ early works, especially ones they didn’t necessarily mean for other people to read. I’ve heard that the other stories she wrote as a teenager were even less “proper” than Lady Susan; certainly much less refined than the novels she polished up for publication.

It was also nice to read a short book from my Classics Club list. I love long books as a general rule, but honestly I’m starting to feel intimidated by the number of enormous books I chose. Three Dickens novels? what was I thinking! At least I had the good sense not to put Clarissa on the list (word count for first edition: 969,000).

Click here to get a copy of Lady Susan. Please note that this is an affiliate link. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase.

Hidden Figures and NT-type Women

20 February, 201711 January, 2019Marissa

Contrary to popular belief, INTJs have emotions. They also express them, though not always to the person they’re having feelings about (for example, an INTJ might tell his best friend he likes a girl, but not tell the girl. Or an INTJ might tell her husband she hates a coworker, but never give the coworker a hint). INTJs tend to compartmentalize their feelings and process them internally, and they hate expressing deep emotions casually or to people they don’t know well.

If you’re very observant, though, and get to know the INTJs in your life, you’ll start to realize there’s a remarkable depth to their feelings. They’ll even do things, like cry at movies, that are typically associated with Feeling personality types. They might scorn the things that are “supposed” to make you cry (e.g. I’m sniffling at a Pixar film and my INTJ sister laughs out loud in the theater). But then I’ll look over and notice moisture leaking from the corners of her eyes at the end of Hidden Figures (I’ve been informed it was not crying).

Hidden Figures (2016) is a fantastic film about “a team of African-American women mathematicians who served a vital role in NASA during the early years of the US space program. ” They were among the first African-Americans and the first women to work in such prestigious technical roles. My sister, about to graduate with a degree in Chemical Engineering, gave me one explanation for her emotional response to the film: “these women and others like them made it possible for me to be an engineer.”

As the character Mary Jackson tells a judge, someone always has to be first. These women proved it’s possible for women to be taken seriously and make important contributions as mathematicians and engineers. But I suspect my sister’s words go deeper than referring to breaking down gender stereotypes about the kind of work women can do. It also has to do with people’s expectations for what women should be like.

Only 24-35% of women have a personality type that relies on Thinking as their primary or secondary mental process (according to the Center for Applications of Psychological Type). INTJ and INTP women are tied for rarest at 1-3% of the female population. ENTJs come in a close third at 1-4%. ENTPs tie with ESTPs with 2-4%, just slightly more common than ISTPs at 2-3%. The STJ types aren’t nearly as rare, with ESTJs making up 6-8% and ISTJs 7-10% of the female population.

I’m not going to type the women in Hidden Figures, but having seen the film I think it’s safe to say Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson are Thinking types. Their minds are naturally wired to excel at processing facts, figures, and data — a hall-mark of the fact-checking, analytical Thinking functions that use “impersonal criteria to make decisions.” I’d say Katherine at least is probably an Intuitive type as well, pairing pattern-recognition and possibility-seeking with her Thinking side.

That means she wasn’t just a rarity at NASA (an African-American woman working in a highly technical position). She’s also a rarity in society (a woman using both Intuition and Thinking as her most comfortable mental processes). Thinking traits are so strongly stereotyped as masculine that NT women often don’t fit cultural expectations for femininity. One of the many things I loved about Hidden Figures is that these three women seemed to have figured out a way to balance being wives and mothers with working as groundbreakingly successful mathematicians. They’re also portrayed as real people who are admired and respected for who they are instead of as the bitchy, controlling, or cold stereotype we often get when presented with Thinking female characters (take Sandra Bullock’s character in The Proposal as an example). And the men they’re in relationships with aren’t scared of them or trying to fit them back in boxes.

It was really wonderful to see characters that embraced femininity on their own terms. While I do believe God created the two genders to be different and complementary in the roles we fill, I also think there are stereotypes in our culture that do both genders a disservice. One of those is that women are or “should” be more emotion-driven than analytically-minded. There’s room for both. And, as Hidden Figures reminds us, we would do ourselves a terrible disservice if we tried to keep these women hidden.

Save