On The Resignation of Eve
Sometimes, despite that old saying, you really can judge a book by its cover. Such is the case with Jim Henderson’s recent book The Resignation of Eve. The main title is provocative but cryptic. But then check out the subtitle: What if Adam’s Rib is no Longer Willing to be the Church’s Backbone?
OK then. Now we’re talking.
In my last post, I looked at the clerical stranglehold that male privilege has on the church. You and I worship in a church where the vast majority of formal leadership positions are held by men.
But what about the non-titled workers in the church? What of the folks that count the offering? That run the kids ministry? That coordinate the weddings? That greet? That clean? That answer the phones?
You guessed it. Women. In an infographic on women in the church, Evangelical pollster George Barna says, “Women are the backbone of U.S. Christian churches. They are more likely than men to comprise the ranks of churchgoers, volunteers and Sunday school teachers.” Truly, women are the unheralded spine of the American church.
But here’s the problem: according to Henderson, women in the American church are resigning from the church in unprecedented numbers. And he means that in three ways.
First, women are resigning from the church. As in, they are walking away from the church and, in some cases, from God. Faced with the ecclesiastical systemic advantage awarded to men, women are leaving the church.
Second, women are resigning to the church as is. When you become resigned to something, by and large you’ve accepted it but your heart isn’t in it. For Henderson, “this kind of resignation leads a woman to appear to be present when she actually left the building years ago.”
Finally, women are re-signing. Henderson writes, “women who have re-signed either remain active in their own churches even though they disagree with the churches’ stances on women, or they intentionally plug into other churches that provide them with the opportunities they seek.”
However you slice the term “resign,” it’s tragic.
You see, male privilege in the church doesn’t just limit women in the pulpit or the church offices. It also limits them in the nursery, the choir loft and, most notably, in the pews. The bottom line is that if an unchecked male bias continues to drive women from the church in these kinds of numbers, then woe to us as we look to our future.
It doesn’t take a biology degree to know what happens to an organism if it loses its spine.
Here’s Henderson’s verdict:
“This is the resignation of Eve, and it impacts the one group whose loyalty the church can least afford to lose. The people who for the most part run the church, attend church, and pray and serve at significantly higher rates than their male counterparts. Women.”
Lord, help us to rethink the way we do church. In particular, give us the courage to build a church that empowers women, both in the clergy and in the laity.
What about you? How have you seen the resignation of eve in your church?
In Our House as Well
Thus far at Challenging Tertullian, we’ve looked at the reality of male privilege primarily in the culture at large. That is, I’ve shined the spotlight on sectors of American society such as the political world and the economic arena. But, at its core, this is a blog that examines the phenomenon of male privilege from a Christian perspective. So, with this post, it’s time to take a look at the American church.
On February 4, 1985, in its Religion section, TIME Magazine published an article provocatively entitled “Women: Second Class Citizens?” The article critiqued the Roman Catholic Church’s treatment of women, particularly its lack of women in the priesthood. Here’s a quote, from a woman named Maryann Cunningham:
“There was a time when the church sanctioned slavery and cheerfully burned heretics, and the patriarchal church still does not see that there is anything to be sorry for in its treatment of women.”
Strong words. But, and here’s the kicker, true words.
Fast forward 27 years to last week, when it was reported that the Church of England voted to NOT ordain women as bishops, effectively retaining a cap on the available leadership roles for women in the Anglican communion. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury lamented the vote because of its negative effect on the mission of the church, saying:
“We have, as a result of yesterday, undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society.”
Let me just come out and say this plainly:
Male privilege is firmly and tragically entrenched in the offices and pulpits of the American church.
In other words, we’re not just talking about a problem in the larger culture. It’s in our house as well. Indeed, in the clerical (church leadership) world in particular, male privilege continues to thrive. Think about it. How many titled female leaders do you know?!?
Let’s talk statistics. Here’s the word from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research:
“Seminary remains by and large a male profession. Twice as many men as women completed the Masters in Divinity degree, the most popular of the programs, in 2005, according to ATS (The Association of Theological Schools) figures.”
To this Barna adds:
“From the early 1990s through 1999 just 5% of the Senior Pastors of Protestant churches were female. Since that time the proportion has slowly but steadily risen, doubling to 10% in 2009.”
Doubling is terrific, but it’s still just 1 in 10.
In her book A Church of Her Own pastor and professor Sarah Sentilles describes in detail, through the use of numerous stories (including her own), how difficult it is for women to gain access to a pastoral role in a mainline Christian denomination. Here’s her verdict:
“All of [the largely negative experiences of women trying to get ordained] revealed the failure of churches to celebrate and support women in ministry and betrayed a deep misogyny alive and well in most Christian denominations.”
Can you feel the effect of privilege?!?
I love the depiction of the first church from Acts 2:42-47. What an image of what the church could be!
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
In this text I see a community that is growing in faith (42-43), growing in fellowship (44-47) and growing in number (47). I realize that this church was established in the context of a patriarchal culture, but in the passage I don’t see a place for institutional patriarchy. Or misogyny. Or “second class citizens” of any kind. On the contrary, according to Luke, it’s just a beautiful community full of “they.”
It’s time to build a church where everyone flourishes.
There is a whole lot more to talk about here, and we’ll get there. My purpose in this post is simply to chronicle the reality of the male privilege that lurks in our churches. In coming posts, I’ll describe the situation with more depth, and I’ll explore both questions and answers.
What about you? How do you see male privilege living in the American church?
The Thankful List
In my 40 years on this planet, I’ve been blessed to be shaped by many amazing men and women, but on this Thanksgiving morning, I want to specifically acknowledge a few of the women that have formed who I am.
Nina Dixon and Betty Hughes, my grandmothers. There they are, flanking that handsome junior high devil there in the picture, with Betty on the left. When in 2 Timothy 1:5 Paul reminds Timothy of his faith tradition that begins with his grandmother, I really resonate. Betty, my maternal grandmother, came to faith later in life and showed us how to press into Jesus through some really difficult life circumstances. Nina, my paternal grandmother, taught her family the value of being steadfast in prayer.
Ann Dixon, my mom. Really it’s tough to narrow down what I’ve learned from my mom. For sure the list includes generosity, service and perseverance in suffering. Also, I first learned the importance of Kingdom hospitality watching my mom bless the foster kids and international students that we hosted in our home as I was growing up.
Una Lucey, my staff mentor. I’m the campus minister I am because Una signed up for a mentoring role in my life way back in my junior year of college. My 16+ years of fruitful ministry are Una’s as well.
Pat Sexton, my mother-in law. Steadfast, resilient, generous and hopeful. That’s Pat. Plus, she always has my favorite cereal on hand when we come visit!
Dr. Carolyn Stefanco, my college professor and adviser. Dr. Stefanco nurtured in me both a love for writing and a concern for gender issues. In particular, she guided me through my senior project, a study on this amazing woman.
Ruth Haley Barton, author. If you are in ministry and you haven’t read Barton’s Strengthening the Soul of Your Leadership, do so now. Kingdom leadership does not have to lead to burnout!
The Bleeding Woman, from Mark 5:24-34. This unnamed woman has been a companion on my spiritual journey, especially as I have sought Jesus for healing in my life. I love her risk-filled faith, first expressed as she pressed through the crowd to touch Jesus’ cloak but then taken to another level when she came forward publicly in response to Jesus’ question.
Enisa Dedic, General Secretary of the Bosnian IFES movement. What do you do if God calls you to lead a ministry that doesn’t yet exist? You say “yes,” you pray a lot, and then you start it from scratch! Enisa is a woman of courage and perseverance. I love planting new things, and Enisa’s example has inspired that passion in me.
Tina Loveridge, co-worker. I work with an amazing group of women, and Tina is one of them. In particular, Tina has become a partner as I’ve started to think about gender issues in the church. From Tina I’ve learned how to advocate, and she’s opened my eyes to the global injustices that women endure.
And last but in no way least…
Amy Dixon, the amazing soul who married me. 15+ years ago Amy took on this crazy and I’ve been learning ever since. If I’m more patient, less moody, more loving, less angry and more/less a million other things, it’s because God has used Amy to shape me, in word and by example.
What about you? Which women are you thankful for this morning?
Linking Black Friday with Male Privilege
The Holidays are upon us! In fact, this week we celebrate two cherished American holidays, Thanksgiving and Black Friday. You know Black Friday of course; it’s the yearly post-Thanksgiving consumer orgy that last year generated some 11.4 billion dollars. That’s “billion” with a “B.”
Because of this, slowly but surely Black Friday is morphing into Black Thursday. I noticed the other day that Walmart will open at 8pm on Thanksgiving for their “family specials” and 10pm for “gadget die-hards.” Then, doors open at 5am on Friday for, evidently, the non gadget-loving single people.
Why am I talking about Black Friday and American consumerism in a blog dedicated to the topic of male privilege?
Because with the arrival of Black Friday, the season for introducing and reinforcing the reality of male privilege for the next generation is upon us.
One way to answer the question of where male privilege comes from in our culture is to point to the way we enculture our children through the toys we buy them. Think about this with me:
For the most part, toys that cater to boys present a traditionally and stereotypically masculine image marked by power, strength and control. Toys for little boys include things like superhero action figures, building sets and water guns. By contrast, toys marketed to girls communicate an image of femininity marked by softness, humility and passivity. Toys for little girls include things like tea party sets, princess dolls and jewelry.
Can you see in this the seeds of male privilege?
Make no mistake about it, the toys we buy communicate a lot. Specifically, we communicate a view of the world where men possess power and women do not. For girls and young women, the results can be devastating.
In her excellent (and disturbing) book Cinderella Ate My Daughter, journalist Peggy Orenstein details some of the fallout:
“According to the American Psychological Association, the girlie-girl culture’s emphasis on beauty and play-sexiness can increase girls’ vulnerability to the pitfalls that most concern parents: depression, eating disorders, distorted body image, risky sexual behavior. In one study of eighth-grade girls, for instance, self-objectification—judging your body by how you think it looks to others—accounted for half the differential in girls’ reports of depression and more than two-thirds of the variance in their self-esteem.”
So what’s the bottom line here?
In American culture, boys are taught at an early age that they intrinsically have more power and privilege while girls need to figure out other, often more destructive, ways to make their voices heard.
So what’s the solution here? How do we push back against this biased system? Here are some of things we’re talking about in my house:
Don’t buy toys at all. Maybe a puzzle or board game instead?
Buy toys according to how our girls are wired. Our oldest daughter is clearly an artist, so for her it’s art supplies over princess castles. Our middle daughter loves sports. That new soccer ball looks better than the costume jewelry.
Or, if we do buy some of the more traditional toys, we will aim to supplement or offset that with lots of intentional conversation about how our girls can grow up to be whoever God has called them to be.
Lastly, here’s another thought: when it comes to buying toys, forget going to Walmart this week and instead buy your little girls something like this. It’s the story of Goldieblox, and it’s a great story.
What about you? How do you identify the roots of male privilege in our culture?
The Things Pat Says…
Say what you want about Pat Robertson, but the brother sure knows how to stir the pot. The wikipedia page “Pat Robertson Controversies” runs for, I kid you not, 25 different entries. Mr. Robertson has managed to offend or disturb groups ranging from Episcopalians to college professors to Hugo Chavez to the U.S. State Department. Impressive.
But I think my favorite Robertson controversy is when he claimed, at 74 years of age, to be able to leg press 2000 pounds. 2000 pounds! Nevermind that, according to the wiki page, “when [future NFLer] Dan Kendra set the Florida State University record of 1,335 lb (606 kg), the leg press machine required extensive modifications to hold the proper amount of weight, and the capillaries in both of Kendra’s eyes burst during his successful attempt.”
If Pat Robertson can leg press 2000 pounds, I can jog a 1:20 marathon…
With all of this as backdrop, I introduce Pat Robertson’s latest outrageous remark, a zinger he offered up two days ago on the topic of the David Petraeus sex scandal. The full article is here, but the remark I want to comment on is this one:
“The man’s off in a foreign land and he’s lonely and here’s a good-looking lady throwing herself at him. He’s a man.”
“He’s a man.” With these words, Robertson has essentially justified or at least explained away Petraeus’ actions. What Pat Robertson is implying is that it’s understandable, or reasonable, or perhaps logical that Petraeus committed this affair. After all, she was pretty, he was lonely, and, most of all, HE IS MALE.
This way of thinking is one place where privilege lives for men, in the culture at large and, get ready, in the church in particular:
Sexual transgressions are more about the woman, and, more often than not, the man is portrayed as the victim.
I’ve been reading a really engaging book by blogger and author Rachel Held Evans called A Year of Biblical Womanhood. In the book, Evans attempts to live out the Bible’s commands for women as literally as possible for a full year. It’s fascinating and insightful. In her chapter on beauty, Evans relates a story about a pastor encouraging the wives in his congregation to dress up for their husbands when they come home from work. Later, with this quote, she captures well the spirit of what I think Pat Robertson is typifying:
“At the last Christian women’s conference I attended, several speakers mentioned the importance of keeping a beauty routine that husbands will not be tempted to ‘look elsewhere.’ The message is as clear as it is ominous: Stay beautiful, or your husband might leave you…and if he does, it’s partially your fault.”
Pat Robertson has nowhere near the influence that he once had in Christendom. I think that’s largely a good thing. But he does continue to represent a brand of evangelical Christianity that holds that when it comes to sex and sexuality the onus is on women to protect the chastity of men.
So let me be clear about a few things this morning. One, General Petraeus is just as culpable as the woman who he cheated with. After all, they both transgressed their wedding vows. Two, when it comes to fidelity to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality, men and women bear the burden of joyful obedience together. In fact, we need each other to honor God in this area.
And, third, for the record, as I type Amy is decked out in pink pajama sweats, fuzzy blue socks and a ratty old sweatshirt. No doubt about it, she’s absolutely beautiful.
What about you? How you have experienced this uneven gender dynamic in the church world?
On Making People Think
Ultimately, it’s not just Tertullian I wish to challenge. Instead, I want to challenge, well, you. And me. All of us. In my last post, I talked about how the situation is changing, however slowly. I see Challenging Tertullian as my effort to help that change come more quickly.
The other day my parents were putting out Thanksgiving decorations. That’s right, Thanksgiving decorations. And in the box they found the pilgrim couple that every year makes a holiday appearance. This year, the spot where this couple would set up shop was a small end table which was already home to a short stack of books. So my mom set up the scene, putting the male figure on top of the books and the female figure (a “pilgrimmette” perhaps?) next to him on the table top.
At this point, I need to let you know that my father grew up in an era where male privilege went basically unchallenged. And after 70ish years of operating one way, it can be tough to think differently. You know, old dogs and new tricks and whatnot.
So with this as background, you’ll appreciate this little gem of a comment: “Jeez, way to put the man on a pedestal. Isn’t that male privilege?!?”
Way to go Dad!
Thusfar on the blog I’ve tried to throw a bunch of examples your way. My goal has been to demonstrate that male privilege is real and that it has teeth. From the political world to the economic world to day-in, day-out interactions between people, male privilege is an influential and destructive reality in our society. I like the label that my professor offered in an early comment, when he called male privilege a “social malady.” Indeed.
I want to give you a sense of what’s coming next. First, I’m going to take a look at male privilege in the church. How does this “systemic advantage based on being male” shape how we do church in this country?
Next, I’m going to start to offer some solutions. If you’ve been reading this blog wondering how we might loosen the powerful grip of male privilege, stay tuned. Your time is coming.
Along the way, I’ll keep offering more examples, more awful quotes from otherwise amazing theologians and more from Mr. Tertullian himself.
It’s been a fantastic 2 months. Thanks to each of you for joining me on this challenging journey.
What about you? Have have you been challenged?
Isn’t it Getting Better?!?
Since I’ve started thinking, talking and blogging about male privilege, I’ve gotten the “Isn’t it getting better?” question a lot. Like during almost every interaction. And my answer is always a qualified yes. Let me illustrate.
On Tuesday night, the great states of Massachusetts, New York, California, Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Nebraska each sent women to the United States Senate. Combined with the women already serving who were not on the ballot last night, it will make the next Senate the most diverse ever in terms of gender, with 20 women taking their seats when the Senate picks up again in the Winter.
Especially in light of other gains by women in the political world, doesn’t this mean that the situation is getting better for women? Isn’t it an indication that the playing field is leveling out?
A qualified yes.
It’s a “yes” in the sense that 20 women will be debating legislation for the first time in the Senate’s history. Indeed, just 82 years after the 19th Amendment, 20 women will be serving in the venerable Senate. Put another way, Amy’s grandmother was alive when women finally got the right to vote, and now she’s alive to see 20 women in the Senate. That’s coming a long way in a relatively short amount of time.
And yet it’s a qualified “yes” in the sense that also shows us just how far we have to go. Women make up over 50% of the population in this country, yet only 20% of our government’s most important legislative body is composed of women. In other words, when a piece of legislation is debated in the Senate, 50+ percent of the population is represented by only 20% of the present Senators.
So, yes, we’ve come along way. And, we have a long way to go.
I felt the same way when I heard the news last August that after years of effort women were finally going to be permitted to join the membership of Augusta National Golf Club, perhaps the most prestigious golf course in the world. That Condoleeza Rice and Darla Moore are now able to play Amen Corner is surely a win in the battle for gender equality. But, again, it’s a qualified win. To me it smacks of tokenism. After all, does opening the doors to two particular women suddenly mean that parity has been reached in golf in general or at Augusta in particular? I think not.
So, yes, as a society we are changing. The playing field is becoming more level. And yet the change is coming slowly and there remains a long way to go, in the political and athletic arenas and in other areas as well, in our country and around the world.
The bottom line, then, is that the march to gender equality is in large part just getting started.
I’ll close with a quote by journalists Sheryl WuDunn and Nicolas Kristof, from their book Half the Sky: “In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”
What about you? Where do you see the gender playing field leveling out around you?
“Male Privilege Once Gripped the Running World as Well”
Yesterday morning, I laced up my running shoes and did a lap around New York’s Central Park. It’s about 10K, it’s hillier than I thought, but wow is it an amazing run. The juxtaposition of park and city is almost overwhelming.
But this wasn’t just any lap around the park. I took the lap in place of the cancelled New York City Marathon.
Yesterday I wasn’t alone, not by a long stretch. Runners from around the world were doing the same lap. In fact, as an English-speaker, I’m pretty sure I was outnumbered. Runners from the Netherlands, Guatemala, Spain, Japan, Italy, all in town but unable to race, provided a beautiful multilingual soundtrack in the park yesterday.
And because the ratio of women to men was pretty much even, it’s tough to imagine a world in which women were not allowed to race a marathon like New York. But such a world existed once. That’s right, male privilege once gripped the running world as well.
So this morning, one day after my lap around Central Park, I want to commemorate something else that happened in Central Park, about 40 years ago. That’s when Nina Kuscsik and 5 other women staged a sit-in at the marathon starting line, protesting the unequal treatment of women in the sport. Here’s the story, in brief, from this article:
Forty years ago, on October 1, 1972, Kuscsik was sitting defiantly on the New York Marathon start line with the five other women competitors, in protest against an AAU ruling that they must start ten minutes ahead, to avoid the supposed health and morality risks of “competing with men.” Kuscsik still managed to win that year’s women’s race, and repeated in 1973. She also took her dissenting energies inside the sport, joining management committees to press for rule-changes that eventually achieved equal status for women.
Health risks? Morality risks? Laughable now, sure. In our day, boys and girls have (for the most part) equal access to sports, in part thanks to the groundbreaking work of Title IX. On the roads, according to this site, more women than men ran 5Ks, 10Ks and half marathons in 2011.
In 40 years, we’ve run a long way.
So here’s to Katherine Switzer, Joan Benoit Samuelson, Nina Kuscsik and women like them for doing the hard work to demonstrate that women can put down the miles as well as men can. Thanks for integrating the sport that I love.
What about you? Where do you see male privilege continuing to have a hold on America’s sports culture?
Couple of Doozies from Tertullian’s Theological Cronies
In this blog’s first post, I wrote this about a particularly bad quote from the early theologian Tertullian:
Sounds bad, and it is bad. It’s also representative, of a school of thought of which Tertullian was one pupil. And here’s the thing, if you ask me, that school was in session before Tertullian, and, significantly, we’re all enrolled in it today.
In this post, I want to tell you about some of Tertullian’s classmates. I’ll call this category “More Bad Quotes from Dead Theologians,” and it’ll become a repository of blatantly anti-women quotations from heroes of the faith that we cherish. Feel free to send me your favorites.
Why do this, you ask? Because I think it’s important to demonstrate the historical lineage of male privilege thinking in the writings of the church’s historical thought shapers. Consider it a chronicle of entrenched ecclesiastical misogyny. My aim, then, is to exposit the theological trail of woe that has set the groundwork for where the church stands today.
In doing all of this, I realize that I’ll be tossing some cherished theological icons under the bus next to Tertullian. And, for them, the same maxim that I wrote about here applies:
We must remember that even if we disagree about something important, in the Kingdom we still called to fellowship together in the Lord, understanding that we have far more in common with a brother or sister than we have in dispute.
So, without further ado, let me share some not-so-fun quotes from two of Tertullian’s classmates:
Here’s Jean Calvin, from his commentary on 1 Timothy 2: Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (ref here)
Then there’s Thomas Aquinas, from Summa Theologiae: As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. (ref here)
Considered in today’s light, these quotes, and others like them, are clearly preposterous. And yet I think they have shaped our current situation, by contributing to a church culture marked by male privilege, more than we care to admit.
What about you? How do you see quotes like these influencing us today?
Why We Should Pay Josh 26% More to Do His Chores
In this election cycle, you may have heard a candidate or two mention something called the wage gap. The wage gap measures the difference in earnings by gender when men and women are working the same job. Most often, the wage gap is expressed in the percentage of male earnings, but I think it’s more vivid to describe it using the percentage difference.
Not surprisingly, across the country the gap favors men. Nationally, the current wage gap sits at about 23%. In other words, if a man and a woman are working the same exact job, men make 23 cents more on the dollar compared to their female counterparts. And here’s the thing:
23% is actually something to be celebrated.
Because, historically speaking, the 23% gap is an all-time high in this country. For instance, according to this site, in 1963, the year the Equal Pay Act was passed in Congress, the gap was over 41%. The good news is that over time the gap has been closing. The bad news is that it’s closed at a glacial pace, at the rate of less than half a cent per year.
Locally, according to this site, the wage gap in Fresno County stands at 26%. By that measure, we need to revisit the allowance distribution in our house! Want to know what the gap is in your county? Check out that link.
At the end of the day:
The wage gap is a symptom of underlying reality of male privilege.
Why does the wage gap exist? That”s a tough question to answer and economists have plenty of theories (and some have plenty of pushback). Lots of factors are a part of the conversation, things like age, educational level and ethnicity. Still, at its core, the wage gap represents a systemic bias against women. It’s a consequence and a symptom of the reality of male privilege.
Lastly, two thoughts on what the wage gap means:
First and foremost, the dogged presence of a wage gap in our country means that women have less money in their pockets then men do. And of course that matters, particularly in a down economy where two thirds of American families have women as either their primary or co-breadwinners. Further, closing the wage gap would be a serious boon to the economy. This article suggests that closing the gap would grow the U.S. economy by 3-4 percentage points, the equivalent of twice the impact of the 2009 federal stimulus package.
Next, there’s the issue of dignity. What the wage gap communicates is that women are fundamentally worth 77% of what men are. Simply put, there is no dignity in a wage gap. In his book A Public Faith, theologian Miroslav Volf articulates the term “human flourishing.” I like the imagery of that idea. Imagine an economic world where men and women are free to flourish at the same level, compensated equally for the work they provide.
What about you? How does the reality of a wage gap make you feel?
Challenging Tertullian 
