"Let Their Works Be Seen—At the City Gate and the Political Sphere," by Angela Valenzuela

Please read my tribute to this day, based on a nuanced re-reading of Proverbs 31 and the writings of Episcopal priest, attorney, and theologian, and graduate of Union Theological Seminary in New York, the Reverend Dr. Patrick Cheng, author of Radical love: Introduction to queer theology.

Wishing all a Happy Mother's Day! -AV

AI Generated by A. Valenzuela

Let Their Works Be Seen—At the City Gate and the Political Sphere

By Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Proverbs 31 has too often been interpreted—and even weaponized—to confine women to narrow roles, uphold rigid gender norms, and sanctify domestic labor while ignoring the text’s deeper call to justice. 

But when I revisited it last night, I didn’t just re-read it with a progressive lens—I reimagined it through the lens of queer theology, as Patrick Cheng invites us to do. What emerged was not a checklist for gendered virtue, but a bold and expansive vision of radical love in action.

The text begins with a mother’s warning to her son, a king: don’t waste your strength. Don’t lose yourself in privilege while the poor are denied justice. True leadership is rooted in moral clarity. It speaks up for those who cannot speak for themselves. It defends the vulnerable. It remembers the humanity of those our systems forget.

Then we are given a portrait—not of submissive womanhood—but of embodied wisdom: a person who leads with strength, builds economic independence, feeds others, uplifts workers, makes decisions, and extends hands to the poor. Their dignity is not performative. Their power is not inherited. It is created daily, through work, courage, and love.

Patrick Cheng writes that queer theology resists binaries—it makes visible the divine in flesh and community, especially in the lives of those who defy the boxes they’ve been forced into. In that spirit, the “noble character” of Proverbs 31 is not confined to straight cisgender womanhood. It belongs to anyone who labors in love and justice—queer parents, nonbinary caregivers, trans organizers, radical kin-builders.

Let their works be praised at the city gate—and the Texas State Capitol, for our purposes, I might add.

Let us honor those who refuse invisibility. Who resist erasure. Who carry the weight of communities and still rise with wisdom on their tongues and fire in their hearts.

This is the vision we need now: Not one of narrow gender norms, but of liberatory embodiment. Not a gatekeeping morality, but a gospel of radical presence.

Because when we let the excluded lead, when we see divinity in every human being—then, and only then, will justice roll down like waters (Amos 5:24).

Reference

Cheng, P. S. (2011). Radical love: Introduction to queer theology. Church Publishing, Inc.

Important Post on the Struggle for Women's Rights by Martha P. Cotera

Martha Cotera (L) with Alicia Gaspar de Alba (Center)
and Angela Valenzuela (Right) at Alicia's May 2,  2019
speaking engagement at the UT Benson Library where
her archives were deposited.
View at: https://tinyurl.com/y3av23bd

I think the post below speaks volumes to young women who feel that the movement for women's rights is irrelevant to them: If you have time, read the post and consider that in 1975, I could not get a phone account for my business without my husband's signature; nor could women get loans for homes, get tubal ligations on their own, and in some cases, not even birth control, of course we had to fight for women to be hired as firefighters, police, and as principals, superintendents, city managers, bankers (basically most professions were closed to women).

These are our own heroinas: Margaret Munoz Simon, Gloria Anzaldua, Lena Guerrero, Isabel Mcgran Gonzalez, Emma Tenayuca, Luisa Moreno, Francisca Flores, Irma Rangel, Virginia Muzquiz, Margaret Cruz, Jovita Idar, Jovita Gonzalez and thousands others deserve our gratitude for their advocacy on our behalf.

-Martha P. Cotera

Women’s March, 2017. Philadelphia, PA

You Are Not Equal. I’m Sorry.
by Dina Leygerman | Medium
Jan 22, 2017
(A post is making rounds on social media, in response to the Women’s March on Saturday, January 21, 2017.
It starts with “I am not a “disgrace to women” because I don’t support the women’s march. I do not feel I am a “second class citizen” because I am a woman….”
This is my response to that post.)

Say Thank You
Say thank you. Say thank you to the women who gave you a voice. Say thank you to the women who were arrested and imprisoned and beaten and gassed for you to have a voice. Say thank you to the women who refused to back down, to the women who fought tirelessly to give you a voice. Say thank you to the women who put their lives on hold, who –lucky for you — did not have “better things to do” than to march and protest and rally for your voice. So you don’t feel like a “second class citizen.” So you get to feel “equal.”

Thank Susan B. Anthony and Alice Paul for your right to vote.

Thank Elizabeth Stanton for your right to work.

Thank Maud Wood Park for your prenatal care and your identity outside of your husband.

Thank Rose Schneiderman for your humane working conditions.

Thank Eleanor Roosevelt and Molly Dewson for your ability to work in politics and affect policy.

Thank Margaret Sanger for your legal birth control.

Thank Carol Downer for your reproductive healthcare rights.

Thank Margaret Fuller for your equal education.

Thank Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Shannon Turner, Gloria Steinem, Zelda Kingoff Nordlinger, Rosa Parks, Angela Davis, Malika Saada Saar, Wagatwe Wanjuki, Ida B. Wells, Malala Yousafzai. Thank your mother, your grandmother, your great-grandmother who did not have half of the rights you have now.

You can make your own choices, speak and be heard, vote, work, control your body, defend yourself, defend your family, because of the women who marched. You did nothing to earn those rights. You were born into those rights. You did nothing, but you reap the benefits of women, strong women, women who fought misogyny and pushed through patriarchy and fought for you. And you sit on your pedestal, a pedestal you are fortunate enough to have, and type. A keyboard warrior. A fighter for complacency. An acceptor of what you were given. A denier of facts. Wrapped up in your delusion of equality.

You are not equal. Even if you feel like you are. You still make less than a man for doing the same work. You make less as a CEO, as an athlete, as an actress, as a doctor. You make less in government, in the tech industry, in healthcare.

You still don’t have full rights over your own body. Men are still debating over your uterus. Over your prenatal care. Over your choices.

You still have to pay taxes for your basic sanitary needs.

You still have to carry mace when walking alone at night. You still have to prove to the court why you were drunk on the night you were raped. You still have to justify your behavior when a man forces himself on you.

You still don’t have paid (or even unpaid) maternity leave. You still have to go back to work while your body is broken. While you silently suffer from postpartum depression.

You still have to fight to breastfeed in public. You still have to prove to other women it’s your right to do so. You still offend others with your breasts.

You are still objectified. You are still catcalled. You are still sexualized. You are still told you’re too skinny or you’re too fat. You’re still told you’re too old or too young. You’re applauded when you “age gracefully.” You’re still told men age “better.” You’re still told to dress like a lady. You are still judged on your outfit instead of what’s in your head. What brand bag you have still matters more than your college degree.

You are still being abused by your husband, by your boyfriend. You’re still being murdered by your partners. Being beaten by your soulmate.

You are still worse off if you are a woman of color, a gay woman, a transgender woman. You are still harassed, belittled, dehumanized.

Your daughters are still told they are beautiful before they are told they are smart. Your daughters are still told to behave even though “boys will be boys.” Your daughters are still told boys pull hair or pinch them because they like them.

You are not equal. Your daughters are not equal. You are still systematically oppressed.

Estonia allows parents to take up to three years of leave, fully paid for the first 435 days. United States has no policy requiring maternity leave.

Singapore’s women feel safe walking alone at night. American women do not.

New Zealand’s women have the smallest gender gap in wages, at 5.6%. United States’ pay gap is 20%.

Iceland has the highest number of women CEOs, at 44%. United States is at 4.0%.

The United States ranks at 45 for women’s equality. Behind Rwanda, Cuba, Philippines, Jamaica.

But I get it. You don’t want to admit it. You don’t want to be a victim. You think feminism is a dirty word. You think it’s not classy to fight for equality. You hate the word pussy. Unless of course you use it to call a man who isn’t up to your standard of manhood. You know the type of man that “allows” “his” woman to do whatever she damn well pleases. I get it. You believe feminists are emotional, irrational, unreasonable. Why aren’t women just satisfied with their lives, right? You get what you get and you don’t get upset, right?

I get it. You want to feel empowered. You don’t want to believe you’re oppressed. Because that would mean you are indeed a “second-class citizen.” You don’t want to feel like one. I get it. But don’t worry. I will walk for you. I will walk for your daughter. And your daughter’s daughter. And maybe you will still believe the world did not change. You will believe you’ve always had the rights you have today. And that’s okay. Because women who actually care and support other women don’t care what you think about them. They care about their future and the future of the women who come after them.

Open your eyes. Open them wide. Because I’m here to tell you, along with millions of other women that you are not equal. Our equality is an illusion. A feel-good sleight of hand. A trick of the mind. I’m sorry to tell you, but you are not equal. And neither are your daughters.

But don’t worry. We will walk for you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you. And one day you will actually be equal, instead of just feeling like you are.

~ Dina Leygerman, 2017

America Is Still a Patriarchy by Philip Cohen

This 2012 Wall St. Journal piece that addresses the concept and relevance of patriarchy in U.S. society is encouraging mainly because it suggests that American patriarchy was weakened—long before the 2018 midterms that created the most diverse Congressional House of Representatives in our nation's history.  I hope we keep trending in this direction as a country toward gender-inclusive politics, policies, and values both across and within all racial/ethnic and economic groups.  

This requires intentionality and vigilance in terms of policies, practices, and priorities rather than something that we as a society "back up" into.  For this, we need pubic school curriculum this is critical together with pedagogical practices that are inclusive and equity-based.  This is what an Ethnic Studies curriculum should offer although it should be threaded throughout the curriculum.

The late Brazilian educator Paolo Freire stated that we should put learning at the service of social justice.  This should challenge us as educators and forever guide our teaching and curriculum as this an ethic that optimally rests at the heart of all educational endeavors.

-Angela Valenzuela

SEXES

America Is Still a Patriarchy

PHILIP COHEN

NOV 19, 2012 Wall st. journal

• Share
• Tweet
• Email

Male dominance may be weakening, but it's not gone.

In this election, women were the majority of voters, and the majority of them voted for Obama. The weaker sex clearly was men, contributing less than half the vote, the majority of whom preferred the loser. This is not new. As with Obama, men and whites also failed to unseat Bill Clinton in his reelection after voting for him the first time.

This story tests my ability to think systematically about power and inequality. How is it possible to understand an unprecedented transformation in women's relative status while also acknowledging men's continued dominance? Must we just list data points, always just including an "on the other hand" caveat to our real narrative? 

I have been described as part of a "feminist academic establishment" that insists on taking the glass-half-empty view—as someone who likes to engage in "data wars" over the details of gender inequality. But what I actually try to do is keep the change in perspective.

In our academic research on gender inequality, my colleagues and I study variation and change. That means figuring out why women's employment increased so rapidly, why some labor markets have smaller gender gaps, why some workplaces are less segregated, why couples in some countries share housework more, why women in some ethnic groups have higher employment rates, and so on.

The patterns of variation and change help us understand how gender inequality works. Systemic inequality doesn't just happen. People (in the aggregate) get up in the morning and do it every day. To understand how it works, we need to see how it varies (for example, some people resist equality and some people dedicate their lives to it). Someone who studies inequality but doesn't care about change and variation is not a social scientist.

Patriarchy

"It's easy to find references to patriarchs, patriarchy or patriarchal attitudes in reporting on other countries," writes Nancy Folbre:

Yet these terms seem largely absent from discussions of current economic and political debates in the United States. Perhaps they are no longer applicable. Or perhaps we mistakenly assume their irrelevance.

In fact—my interpretation of the facts—the United States, like every society in the world, remains a patriarchy: they are ruled by men. That is not just because every country (except Rwanda) has a majority-male national parliament, and it is despite the handful of countries with women heads of state. It is a systemic characteristic that combines dynamics at the level of the family, the economy, the culture and the political arena.

Top political and economic leaders are the low-hanging fruit of patriarchy statistics. But they probably are in the end the most important—the telling pattern is that the higher you look, the maler it gets. If a society really had a stable, female-dominated power structure for an extended period of time even I would eventually question whether it was really still a patriarchy.

In my own area of research things are messier, because families and workplaces differ so much and power is usually jointly held. But I'm confident in describing American families as mostly patriarchal.

Maybe the most basic indicator is the apparently quaint custom of wives assuming their husbands' names. This hasn't generated much feminist controversy lately. But to an anthropologist from another planet, this patrilineality would be a major signal that American families are male-dominated.

Among U.S.-born married women, only 6 percent had a surname that differed from their husband's in 2004 (it was not until the 1970s that married women could even function legally using their "maiden" names). Among the youngest women the rate is higher, so there is a clear pattern of change—but no end to the tradition in sight.

Of course, the proportion of people getting married has fallen, and the number of children born to non-married parents has risen. Single parenthood—and the fact that this usually means single motherhood—reflects both women's growing independence and the burdens of care that fall on them (another piece of the patriarchal puzzle). This is one of many very important changes. But they don't add up to a non-patriarchal society.

Differences that matter

The social critic Barbara Ehrenreich—in a 1976 essay she might or might not like to be reminded of—urged feminists to acknowledge distinctions that matter rather than tar everything with the simplistic brush of "patriarchy." Using China as an example, she wrote:

There is a difference between a society in which sexism is expressed in the form of female infanticide and a society in which sexism takes the form of unequal representation on the Central Committee. And the difference is worth dying for.

China presents an extreme case, with an extremely harsh patriarchy that was fundamentally transformed—into a different sort of patriarchy. By the late 1970s female infanticide (as well as footbinding) had indeed been all but eradicated, which represented a tremendous improvement for women, saving millions of lives. Since the advent of the one-child policy in the 1980s, however, female infanticide has given way to sex-selective abortion (and female representation on the ruling committees has dropped), representing an important transformation. Calling China a "patriarchy" is true, but by itself doesn't much help explain the pattern of and prospects for change.

Like Ehrenreich, I think we need to look at the variations to understand the systemic features of our society. Men losing out to women in national elections is an important one. Given the choice between two male-dominated parties with platforms that don't differ fundamentally on the biggest economic issues despite wide differences in social policy, women voters (along with blacks, Latinos and the poor) bested men and got their way. I wouldn't minimize that (more than I just did), or ignore the scale and direction of change. The American patriarchy has weakened.

I expect some readers will go right to their favorite statistics or personal experiences in order to challenge my description of our society as patriarchal. In that tit-for-tat, men leading the vast majority of the most powerful institutions, and that American families usually follow the male line, become just another couple of data points. But they shouldn't be, because some facts are more important than others.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

PHILIP COHEN is a professor of sociology at the 

University of Maryland in College Park.