Speaking the Same Language – If Only…

There was no way I could not weave women’s suffrage into this narrative today, for tomorrow, August 26, 2020, is the 100^th Anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution. What a journey they undertook, what a victory they earned. And what a reminder that to truly realize equality, we cannot ignore the intersectional oppressions of racism and disenfranchisement so that all people can freely exercise their right to vote. 

Let’s bask in a few quotes and observations from that time and our own which, I believe, also apply to the quest of women and others to achieve a comparable triumph in the Catholic Church:

“How can anyone who is able to use reason, and who believes in dealing out justice to all God’s creatures, think it is right to withhold from one-half of the human race rights and privileges freely accorded to the other half, which is neither more deserving nor more capable of exercising them?”   

         — Mary Church Terrell, prominent Black leader of the suffragist movement

“Her right to be and to do is as full, complete and perfect as the right of any man on earth. I say of her, as I say of the colored people, ‘Give her fair play, and hands off.’”

         — Frederick Douglass at the International Council of Women in 1888

“I think the way we talk about suffrage needs attention. It is so often described in a way that makes it seem kind of dowdy and dour – whereas in fact it is exciting and radical. Women staged one of the longest social reform movements in the history of the United States. This is not a boring history of nagging spinsters; it is a badass history of revolution staged by political geniuses.” 

          — Kate Clarke Lemay, historian and curator at the National Portrait Gallery

Wow, I’ve always aspired to be a “badass”!  Luckily, there is still time!

Because they apply to women in our Church, let us direct these same cries for justice at our male-controlled hierarchy and those that support its narrow ways, as well. But how can we make people hear as the suffragists finally managed to do?  How can we achieve our own triumphant equality in leadership and ministry?

I first thought to look at what men, yes, but especially what many women, claimed as their justification for opposing their own gender’s suffrage and try to apply it to our cause. What I read was not especially helpful. An article in the New York Times, “The Women Who Fought Against the Vote” by Jennifer Schuessler gave an overview. As you may have suspected, many women opposed this equalizing step in order to protect their own special privileges. Many also saw the world of politics as too raucous, corrupt, and tainted for their more delicate sensibilities: Women could better serve the public good through charity work or ensuring domestic order and peace at home. Sound familiar? Even those women who conceded and even championed women’s equality in ‘ordinary’ matters of daily life like Art Students League of New York founder, Helena deKay Gilder, saw the ballot as “a burden that would corrupt and ‘unsex’ them, and take away their ‘liberty’.”

I did not understand that last point about voting taking away our liberty. I would need her to explain that one in person. And perhaps that is the whole point. In addition to taking our “badasses” out there to continue the campaign, we need to understand the opposition, not so much within the hierarchy – we understand that only too well – but within our own community. Maybe that will help them understand us, too.

The quest to a deeper consideration of other views led me to a surprising source this week, an article called “’Christianity Will Have Power’” by Elizabeth Dias in the August 9 NYT.  The concentration was on the reasons for many white evangelicals’ political choices, but I thought, once again, some of their explanations could inform us about the opposition to our own movement.

One prominent critique by conservatives came from their sense that progressives look down on them, condescend to them, lump them together unfairly as misogynistic, backward-facing, entrenched, closed-minded and uninformed. One person summarized: “They don’t understand us the same way we don’t understand them. So we don’t want them telling us how to live our lives. You joke that we don’t get it, well, you don’t get it either. We are not speaking the same language.”

Another critique by people interviewed focused on what I see as the core of their resistance. One speaking of his current life said, “For us, this is as good as it gets”; another, “We are in a little area where we’re protected yet (and) we’re afraid of losing that.”  “I’m safe when I’m here. I’m not afraid when I’m here,” one person commented. Another added, “We have life very easy; it is laid back, it is like-minded people. And it’s just, I like the bubble.”

The bubble also included a different way of seeing their roles as women: One woman spoke with a passion that only grew in intensity: “People think just because we have conservative values and we value the family and I value submitting to my husband, I must be against women’s rights. I would say it takes a stronger woman to submit to a man than to want to rule over him. And I would argue that point to the death.”

To them, certainty was the prime goal, in their lives and in their churches. They wanted to preserve their personal and community safety; they did not want to constantly deal with change; they did not want to live in ambiguity. I’m fighting the strong urge to begin arguing here, to take out my badass self and confront what I might see as dangerous complacency abetting injustice while in my heart knowing I so often want to be safe and certain, too, and that they want justice and peace and an end to suffering as much as I do.

There’s a strong difference and a, maybe not equal but promising, commonality here, and I think we can work with that. Just because living in ambiguity, change, and uncertainty energizes me does not mean I cannot work with those who are energized by their opposites. The article ended by describing the day armed security forces tear gassed and shot rubber bullets at peaceful protesters in order to let the president have a photo op holding up a Bible. While we progressives were horrified by what we saw as a gross abuse of power and example of horrific injustice, one person in the interview saw it differently: “To me it was like, that’s great. (The president) is recognizing the Bible, we are one nation under God. He is willing to stand out there and take a picture of it for all the country to see.”

I definitely had not seen it that way. We certainly were not speaking the same language. But I could understand his point, and I think, if we kept talking, he could see mine. I march with the suffragists; I shout out for our own cause; I talk (and write!) a lot, and, believe me, I will continue to do so. But I can also listen and learn and cultivate mutual respect. I need the strength those quiet gifts bring me, too.