Historically, Quakers have challenged traditional gender roles by accepting women as ministers. How does that attitude manifest today? Maggie Harrison explores this question.
Resources:
- Subscribe to QuakerSpeak so you never miss a video
- Read Friends Journal to see how other Friends describe the substance of Quaker spirituality
- Visit FCNL to Lobby with Quakers on Capitol Hill
- Work for peace with justice with AFSC.
- Learn about the rich diversity of Quakers worldwide with FWCC.
Discussion Questions:
- Historically, Quakers challenged traditional gender roles by accepting women as ministers. How does that manifest today?
- How are Quakers stirring things up in our cultural conversation around gender?
Transcript:
If someone comes into a Quaker Meeting, and they see all of these people acting out of their usual roles—you see all these women that are really out there and leading and, I don’t know, being amazing and powerful and exciting, that’s what I think, or we see these men that are being so tender and listening really deeply and well to the people around them and making space for females to voice without being overtaken—someone might think, “Wow, how did these people get like this?”
How Quakers Challenge Traditional Gender Roles
In my assessment, we definitely have such a strong history of male and female empowerment and that we want it to be equal. That goes back to the very first days of Quakerism, and I think that whether we’re conscious of it or not, there’s a way that we want to carry that forward. Women in our society: not treated equally, not listened to as much, not given as much respect. And so in Quaker meetings and Quaker communities, we really want to make that more possible than what you might see elsewhere.
Growing Into Who We Could Be
I think another thing is—consciously or not—it’s a critique of how oppressive our gender dynamics are today, and that’s something I see in the queer community too. It’s a lot of people saying,“Woah, hold up. This whole thing that we have going on in society is really violent.” Whether it’s physically violent, but it’s emotionally violent. It’s violent towards us growing into who we can be, for men and women… that men have to be huge and they have to be strong all the time and they have to be loud and they have to be the leaders and they have to have all the responsibility. That is violence against men.
Men don’t have to be all that way. If it’s how they are and how they are feeling led to be and how their natural gifts are coming out, great! I love for men to be that way. But they don’t have to be, and forcing them into that box is just as oppressive as forcing women into the box of: you have to be accommodating, you have to be listening, you have to be supportive. You have to take the back seat if the man has a really good idea he’s excited about, you have to just follow, whether you like it or not. That’s also oppressive and violent towards women. So there’s this way that we’re exploring. What is taking away that violence against men, and taking away this violence against women, what would that look like?
Exploring Alternative Gender Roles
And so one of the ways that I think Quakers are exploring that is: if I’m a man, what if I really learn how to take a step back and let others lead? Let women lead? What if I really learn how to listen attentively and absorb and even check in to make sure that I really got it and that I really listened? So there’s this exploration of sort of gentle manhood and also listening manhood that maybe I don’t see other places, and also women leading, women being listened to, being held up.
Seeking Balance
And it’s not always, you know, it’s a bumpy road. Sometimes we have women that are totally unbound and they’re just going off and you’re like, “Ok, well, some balance there would probably be good.” and sometimes we have these men that actually feel like they can’t be strong and big because they maybe would be a bad liberal Quaker, which I disagree with but I really get why it would pan out that they would feel that way.
It’s such a funny dynamic in our communities, that we have this loudness and this quietness. We have this forward, leading, passion, visionary, and we have this gentle, listening, open, tender thing. We have both.
The views expressed in this video are of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Friends Journal or its collaborators.
This reminds me to speak a word of appreciation to the American Friends Service Committee for action that they officially took in the early 1970s. I had been working in the Chicago office as “Peace Education Secretary,” and we learned that we were about to have a baby.
So the Personnel Committee (clerked by the late George Watson) met with us to hear our suggestion that Nancy and I “split the job.” We would each have 2 days of the week in the office, and the 5th day we would bring in our new baby.
That committee was fully supportive, and approved our re-alignment of the position, so we were “Co-Secretaries for Peace/War Issues.” They also approved a month or so period of “Paternity Leave.”
The benefit to AFSC was immediate, because Nancy had skills and determination in areas of work that I either had been avoiding or wasn’t good at, particularly relating to our oversight committee, and arranging conferences and public speaking. I was able to give more attention to my passion: working with conscientious objectors and resisters in and out of the miliary.
But the biggest benefit in my eyes was that I got to be a Daddy as much as Nancy could be a Mom. Up until then, the traditional idea of fatherhood was that, besides the biological part, one’s main responsibility was to bring in income and enforce discipline. Equal parenthood was a refreshingly (and to some, threateningly) New Idea.
George Watson said that he was eager to move ahead on this model — sharing the paid work, and sharing the parenting — because he and Elizabeth had wanted some such arrangement in the mid-1940s, and Friends weren’t ready for it at that time.
One more example of Quakers being less rigid and more open on things having to do with gender (or in the language we used at the time, “Sex-Role Stereotypes.”)
I then was able to launch on one of the biggest and most satisfying adventures of my life, enthusiastically being a Dad.
Thanks, Friends!
—DHF
Awesome Maggie! Wonderful concise spotlight on the dynamic that has been alive in Friends from the very beginning…..that’s what led me to join Quakers, and to travel to England to explore how the early Friends had the courage to take this bumpy road! Kudos to Friends Journal and to Jon Watts, AFSC, FCNL, and FWCC for lifting up these very special aspects of Quakerism.
Thank you, Maggie.
I love your experience in West Philly and the optimism you have. I can relate to your dreamy idealistic view of Quakerism. But Quakers, I learned after 7 years, are people, a cross-section of society. Quakers have all of the shortcomings and are conditioned growing-up in our society like anyone else. We think we’re better, and I agree, Quaker Core values drew me in.
True, at my meeting, Quaker women are strong, take charge, and I love them. They often lead and are respected. The men appear to be listening. like you said, but, who knows, most eyes are closed during Meeting — I see our guys as gentle in word and deeds.
I have to face, however, that my Meetings are not diverse. We would be richer if we had POC attendees and Friends who came out as LGBTQ, but we don’t.
Plus we have to face the reality of Quaker racism, (hopefully unconsciously.) But I’ve experienced the denial and discomfort when Black Lives Matter issues are raised. I continue to have hope in my Friends.
Go, West Philly!