Women's suffrage makes My Lady Bibliophile uncomfortable

[Rachel333]

Remember My Lady Bibliophile? For those who don't, she's a stay at home daughter who does book reviews, and we've talked about her before here and here. Her blog is ladybibliophile.blogspot.com

I was curious about what she was up to now, and it looks like not much has changed. She still talks a lot about gender; for example, she liked the Christian historical fiction novel Not By Sight, but was troubled by one character's "suffrage attitude towards women's rights."

In some places it was not what I had hoped. I found Jack's plot easy to predict ahead of time, and the combined elements of blindness, a suffrage sweetheart, Bay Rum cologne and agnosticism towards Christianity were elements I had seen before in contemporary fiction. Grace's suffrage attitude towards women's rights also made me uncomfortable at times. I believe women are created by God to do a wide variety of dominion-minded works--in the marketplace and at home. But Grace wanted to seize freedom for herself from the grasp of narrow-minded men, and I wish the men could have been given a more positive role in this story.

(I wasn't sure what was wrong with Bay Rum cologne, but I looked it up and it was once used as a way to get around Prohibition.)

She prefers the women in The Faerie Queen who "killed evil people within their God-given position of biblical womanhood" and/or accepted their roles as damsels in distress.

I don't think I've ever read a book that embodies chivalry between men and women so well as The Faerie Queene. I'm a bit tired of the arguments about chivalry between the sexes in modern society. The Faerie Queene didn't argue or make exceptions. It just illustrated how good men should treat good women, and how good men should treat evil women. Each knight faithfully dispensed his duties with bravery and chivalry for each damsel he found in distress. There was nothing more important to a knight than rescuing a lady in need, and it didn't matter if the lady was in the most compromising or embarrassing of situations. I think this book gave me an appreciation like none other of the comfort and security God designs for women by giving them the love and protection of men. What a precious, precious gift.

She still doesn't like swearing, and when reading a book by Christian comedian Tim Hawkins she skipped the chapter called "Christian Cuss Words" and thinks the chapter "Colonoscopy" should have probably been skipped as well.

I do want to give her some credit in that I think she may be slightly more open-minded than she was in the past. In the past she worried about being a stumbling block to others because she wrote about a book with a Catholic character. Now, while she had no idea at first how to review Mara, Daughter of the Nile because Christianity was absent in it, she was able to extract some good values from it anyway.

She also says it can be okay to read modern literature and not just Dickens and Elsie Dinsmore. She uses gender stereotypes, but she at least seems to be making some effort into understanding others.

This calls for discernment and compassion. It's easy to pick up a romance book and make a swift judgement "modern girls are boy-crazy." Not so fast. Maybe modern girls are hungry for God-wired family and love, and that's the only place they know where to find it. It's easy to look at a fantasy book and say "Battles. boy stuff. Just like a video game." Not so fast. Maybe it's a sign that boys crave adventure, dominion, leadership, and they're finding it in that medium. Everybody's seeking. The books they pick up are yet another indication of questions they want truth on. Questions about religion, life purpose, and relationships.

Discernment involves looking at what world views the authors are promoting.

Every author gives answers according to their worldview. Some of the answers are good (creation, obedience, family, dominion, submission, authority, and Gospel) others are bad (evolution, autonomy, modernity, individual truth, and individuality).

Apparently it is a lie outside the Bible that it is okay to be who you truly are.

What lies are they believing?

"Girls are tough; fend for yourself." "Any relationship is OK if your love need is being met." "You need a boyfriend." "It's OK to be who you truly are." All of these are major things taught in today's literature. Character journeys can tell you a lot about what your peers believe...and whether you, too, are being duped into lies outside the Bible.

Then once you have gleaned the themes of modern books, you can recommend better books to your peers.

Only after you have a basic idea of what your peers are being told, do you have an ability to offer the truth to them. Once you know the story elements they love (adventure, fantasy, romance) can you recommend books to them with those well-loved plots that actually teach truth: "Women have dignity." "Submission isn't subjection." "God is Love, Justice, Holiness, Master." "Men need adventure." "Families mirror Gospel." You bet girls need some strong lassies. But Britomart will teach them much more truth than Katniss, with the same elements of battle and adventure.

As backwards as her ideas are, she seems to be going slightly against the fundie ideal of completely isolating yourself from the modern world.

I think a lot of Christians are afraid to develop a listening spirit in today's day and age. If they listen, they fear the other side might convince them. And they're right. We're a frail people, and that's why we need to be earnest in prayer for a mighty God's protection and grace. That risk requires being faithful in prayer, setting our standard exclusively by the Word of God, and having wise accountability partners. But if we don't listen, we risk something more important: losing hearts of people who we could bring back to a standard of truth.

Don't worry, though, if reading Hunger Games is too much for you, you don't have to do it because, "God doesn't call everyone to be a front line soldier, and that's OK."

[defraudingjezebel]

Hmm. I find it telling that she is more comfortable with the portrayal of femininity and masculinity in a nearly 500 year old epic poem than modern historical fiction.

I remember coming across her blog on here but I didn't read it extensively. I bet she's one of those "I was born in the wrong era" folks. Go back to the 1500s, lady, and then you'll see how "godly" people were back then. Hint: society was just as awful as (if not far worse than) it is today.

[nickelodeon]

Eh, I'm glad she's reading more broadly than she was a few years back, but as a book person I still find her way of reading totally grody. What's the point of reading modern/diverse/interesting books if all you're going to think about is how sorry you are for the ladies in them who must be longing for a guy to boss them around or the people who think it's good to be true to themselves? Doesn't seem like a very edifying or interesting practice tbh.