Recently in Feminist Thought Category

As is normally the case, I was listening to a local morning show during the five minute drive to work today.  I happened to catch the hosts discussing the question, "How many people have a thing for their boss?"  Having just "established" that there are not a lot of guys with women for bosses (surely a topic that deserves its own blog post or twenty), they immediately started focusing on women who had a thing for their male bosses.

One of them (Duffy, if memory serves) argued that it would make sense that a lot of women would have a thing for their bosses.  After all, bosses "have money and power."  Because, you know, that's all a woman is looking for when she's "on the prowl" for a man.

Let that sink in, all you women and men who love women.  A local radio host just suggested that all a woman needs to be attracted to a guy is for him to have money and/or power.  Things like looks, personality, being interesting, having mutual interests, and oh, I don't know, being a decent human being don't factor into the equation at all.  Or if they do, they can be easily overruled by the possession of money and power.

So which tropes are these guys intending to support?  Women as gold-diggers?  Women as manipulative shrews who only want power over others and who are willing to exert it through their man?  Women as weak people who simply want someone else who can pamper and protect them?  I don't know (and don't care) what they intended, but they're certainly propagating all of those notions.

They're most likely propagating a few others I'm not even thinking of right now.  Readers are welcome -- nay, encouraged -- to point them out in the comments section.

I apologize for not getting a blog post up yesterday.  Extra hours at work and the mental exhaustion caused by a major deadline and other factors prevailed, and I chose to spend much of the last forty-eight hours taking care of myself rather than blogging.  I hope to make time and conserve mental energy tonight to meet my blogging schedule for the rest of this week.

In the meantime, I wanted to bring attention to a week-old story from the Huffington Post. Kristen Wolfe relates a story in which two boys come in to the store she works so the older boy can buy the other one, his younger brother, a game and game controller.  The younger brother selects a game with a female character and a purple controller, specifically referring to purple as a "girl color."  All is well and everyone is happy until the boys' father gets involved.  Kristen describes his reaction:

He saw the game, and the controller, and started in on the youngest about how he needs to pick something different. Something more manly. Something with guns and fighting, and certainly not a purple controller. He tried to convince him to get the new Zombie game "Dead Island" and the little boy just stood there repeating, "Dad, this is what I want, OK?" Eventually it turned into a full-blown argument complete with Dad threatening to whoop his son if he didn't choose different items.

Kristen goes on to tell how the older brother stood up for his sibling until his father backed won and then reassured the boy.  Kristen herself spoke to the younger brother, pointing out that he should go on liking whatever it is he likes, regardless of what other people think.  It's a great story that challenges gender stereotypes and vindicates those who choose not to be limited by the narrowly defined gender roles.

I think it's equally important to note, however, that this story is also about misogyny.  The father in the story's whole problem with his younger son's choices is that, in his mind at least, they're not sufficiently "manly" choices.  That's code word for "his son is being too much like a girl."  This suggests that there's something wrong with a boy being "too much like a girl,"[1] which suggests that there's probably something wrong with being a girl.

This is my problem with ideas like "manning up" and "being a man."  They are based in the idea that "being a man" really means "not being a girl/woman."  It reinforces the idea that women are second-class humans, even if unintentionally.  And I'm not at all convinced it's unintentional.

Note:
[1]  Which means we're almost certainly in transphobic territory too.

Note from Jarred:  When I began reading chapter eight of Raised Right:  How I Untangled my Faith from Politics, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much space Ms. Harris devoted to sharing her own experiences with sexism in the Church and how it affected the way she saw others who had a differing view on various subjects.  I felt it would be good to spend a bit of extra time looking at this topic.  I also felt that there was someone (several someones, actually) who was better suited to speak to the topic.  So I asked an old blogging buddy, Pam Hogeweide, if she'd be willing to write something on the topic.  After all, Pam has not only done a good deal of research on sexism in the church and women in theology, but as a woman, she has first-hand experience.  I was delighted when Pam accepted the invitation.

On an editorial note, beyond making a few visual formatting changes (such as fixing up the quotes for my blog) and bolding the word "complementarianism" where Pam gives a brief definition of the word, I have strived to duplicate Pam's words exactly as she sent them to me.

Jarred and I are blog buddies and Twitter pals. Though we've never met, we have crossed paths many times in the digital world for several years. I am honored that he has invited me to share some thoughts for his series on the book, Raised Right: How I Untangled My Faith from Politics, by Alisa Harris.

In chapter eight of the book, Alisa gives us glimpses of the sexism she experienced from her church  that has left her a bit scraped up. Female prejudice is an unfortunate reality in our culture, though Alisa sheds light on how the Christianized version of sexism tried to box her in. Like after her graduation from college. Alisa had travelled home only to find that the spiritual leaders from her childhood were there to stage an intervention:

". . . I sat between my parents and listened while our pastor and a church elder explained how my own sin required them to stage an intervention. The pastor and elder, part of a loose affiliation of fundamentalist churches, had grave reservations about women attending college when God ordained marriage and babies instead. College had changed me, they said. I talked more about careers and academics than about being a wife and a mother. . . I was no longer the kind of person they wanted their daughters to emulate."

These are harsh words hurled by men of the cloth who are attempting to keep Alisa on the straight and narrow of being a good Christian woman.  It is all too common for women from conservative Christian churches (as well as not-so-conservative) to experience this tearing at personhood for the heresy of being Her.

I am well acquainted with the complementarian position Alisa's childhood pastors asserted. I used to live under it myself and also defend it. Complementarianism is a fancy theological term that shrouds the idea that women are equal, BUT separate. It's the idea that God in his divine order of creation has uniquely created men to lead and women to assist. It's why men are the the pastor and women the secretary.

This view is based on a handful of scripture verses that at first glance seem to support the complementarian position. For instance, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Sounds pretty dire for women, doesn't it? But the same author who is given credit for penning these words--the apostle Paul--also wrote in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  So which is it Paul? Are women free to be anything or is there a hierarchal constraint designed by God?

It was these kinds of inconsistent Bible verses that got me into debates with other Christians when I was younger. I saw the world in black and white evangelical hues. I was the girl who had the bumper sticker that read, God said it, I believe it that settles it.   But I have always been a blessed woman who has possessed strong minded female friends. And it was one of those friends who first wrangled with me that God does indeed esteem women as fully as men. Just look at how Jesus treated women. He was scandalous. Rabbis of his time were not to look let alone speak to women publicly or touch them. Yet Jesus related freely with women, breaking all social and cultural and religious protocol.

So the issue of female equality in the typical protestant church is reduced to the interpretation of a few Bible verses. The problem here is that rigid beliefism locks many people into an immovable perspective that leaves no room for a spirit of inquiry or respect for differing opinions.  Like this commenter who left this challenging remark at my blog in response to my post about women's equality in the church:

You need to be reminded that this world isn't about you and what goes on in your mind. This about God and what he wants, and if he were to demand that there be a separate, lower section of seats in the church for women to sit in, then as a believer in God you better sit there! Now obviously I'm using a more extreme case of "sexism" or whatever you would call it to illustrate my point, but at least you understand it.
 If you disagree with that argument then you are disagreeing with God, because whatever God asks of you, you need to do.
 It's a simple fact that Eve took the fruit and ate it before giving it to Adam and convincing him to eat it as well. So you tell me, why do you think God doesn't want women to lead the church?   (from How God Messed Up My Religion)

I wish I were making this up, but nope, sexism is alive and well in the 21st century and it's dressed up in pretty church language in Christendom.

A woman's identity is overrun with messages from her church that she is to be the sidekick to man's leading role in the narrative of life. These forces shape and inform a woman's perception of herself. Alisa reveals this when she writes,

"I sat through sermons where the pastor said we should train our children--but especially our sons--to be spiritual warriors, as if women's warfare was battling a grimy kitchen instead of the forces of darkness. I sat heavy in my seat while the pastor invited the men and boys, but not the women, to pray for a teenager going on a mission trip. Women probably shouldn't be missionaries, said the pastor's kid."

A thousand instances like this one will affect the image of God a woman will internalize.
I remember one women's Bible study I attended years ago. One of the participants said out loud to us in a moment of vulnerability, "I wonder if God just thinks women are meant to be doormats." She began crying with that admission, her feminine wound bleeding out  on the clean church carpet. The room sat quietly, and then, the moment passed, and we resumed our discussion of why biblical submission is a Christian woman's duty.

I've blogged about these things many times. There is always pushback like from the commenter above. It is controversial, and this I find absurd, an absolute absurdity that the issue of women and equality in church is an issue at all.

Hear me on this: in the 19th century American church, slavery was a controversial issue!

I'm glad Alisa is telling it like it is. Women need to do this. We need to tell our stories, to say out loud what's happened to us and to make sure we don't minimize Christianized oppression as a mere theological hiccup that's irritating but has to be accepted. No. I don't think so, and it sounds like Alisa doesn't think so either. The church might not have raised her right in helping empower her in all her womanly glory, but she's managed to find her voice despite her conditioning to be a domesticated female. That makes her a warrior woman  in my mind, no matter her faith or politics.

Pam Hogeweide is a blogger and writer. Her first book, Unladylike: Resisting the Injustice of Inequality in the Church, confronts and dismantles Christianized sexism. It will be released by on Amazon January 23. Pam lives in Portland, Oregon with her husband Jerry and their two teenagers.

Patriarchy sucks for a lot of people.  Some of those people are men.  After all, patriarchy seeks to establish some sort of code on what it means to be a man and enforce it.  That means that if some man -- I'll use myself as an example -- don't meet that code, we are deemed "not man enough" and are often ridiculed and mistreated by the patriarchy's many enforcers.

According to the patriarchy, my "manhood" is open for debate because:

• I am terrible at sports.
• I tend to be very sensitive an emotional.
• I like various "girly" things.
• I like kissing other men, not to mention doing other things with them.

Being teased or having my "manhood" questioned isn't fun.  Like I said, not being a sufficiently sanctioned "real man" in the patriarchy sucks.

But you know what sucks even more in the patriarchy?  Being a woman.  This is because women are the real targets of the patriarchy.[1]  The whole reason that the patriarchy wants to define what it means to be a "real man" is to set men apart from women, demonstrate that they're extra-special, and thereby justify and maintain male superiority, male privilege, and male dominance.

Patriarchy's mistreatment of me is a side effect of its real objectives, which is to wage war on women.  To put it more bluntly, I'm nothing more than collateral damage.[2]  Furthermore, while I may be hurt by patriarchy, I also benefit from it and the privileges being male grants me:

• It's highly unlikely that my accomplishments will be overlooked or diminished by men who are more interested in how big my breasts are or how good I am in bed.
• I don't have to be nearly as worried about whether the man who strikes up a conversation with me at the coffee shop will rape me because he thinks he's entitle to any man he decides to be friendly toward.
• Not many people will be inclined to assume that I can't possibly be an engineer, a firefighter, a doctor, or a soldier simply because I'm a man.[3]

I don't bring this up to diminish the fact that I and other men are hurt by the patriarchy.  I do, however, want to put the harm done to us into the proper context, because I feel that context recommends the best response I and other men can make.

If we are collateral damage in the patriarchy's war on women, then I think it's time to start allying ourselves with the women in that war.  After all, if we're all being hurt by the patriarchy, it's time we all start fighting against that same patriarchy.  And that's why I'm for promoting feminism and feminists.

This is where I think it's important to understand that as men hurt by the patriarchy, we're collateral damage rather than the actual targets, our role in this fight is also secondary.  I strongly believe we need to follow the women's lead in this fight.  As I said in my previous entry, we can't make this all about us, even though we will benefit in the process.[4]  But we need to be willing to set aside our egos and our desire to take the center stage -- reasserting that same male privilege that the patriarchy already grants us[5] -- and work as supporters and allies.

Notes:
[1] Actually, I suspect that trans* people of all types also qualify as real targets as well.  After all, whereas I might question the gender policing that the patriarchy uses to enforce male superiority and dominance, trans* people reject it thoroughly and completely by having the "gall" to refuse to "stick with their rightly assigned gender."

[2] Not that this makes me or other man any less injured.

[3] People might assume that I can't do some of those things because I personally am lacking in some way as an individual.  They'd be right.  But there's a difference between that and assuming women can't do those same things because they're the same.  I'm a man, so I get to be an individual.

[4] And despite what some may think or claim, many feminists want us men to benefit from feminism.  I've heard far more women talk about how patriarchy hurts men than I've heard men talk about it.

[5] And that's the thing.  It seems like a lot of men who are hurt by the patriarchy aren't ready to give up the ways in which the patriarchy still serves them.  They want to be able to "like girly things" -- to pick an example -- yet still maintain some sort of special status over women.  Fighting the patriarchy doesn't work like that though.  You fight it all or you ca't really fight it at all.

Some time ago, I had a friend who liked to be "helpful."  He loved to do nice things for others.  He loved talking about all the nice things he did for other people.  It got annoying rather quickly.

Mind you, there's nothing annoying about helping other people.  In fact, such expressions of altruism, hospitality, and compassion are something I personally value greatly -- and think everyone should value greatly.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with sharing stories where one helps another.  It's often a good way of raising awareness of the problems and needs of others.  If my friend Becky mentions in passing that she gave our mutual friend Ralph some extra grocery money, I might respond by saying that I didn't realize Ralph was strapped for cash and ask if he's okay.  I might even contact Ralph and ask him if there's anything else he needs.

No, the problem with my friend's behavior was that he was bragging.  What's more, it quickly became clear that his intentions were not so much to help others but to draw attention to himself in that "look at what a great guy I am" sort of way.  In time, I began wondering if he cared about the people he helped at all beyond a way to show off what a great guy he was.

I thought of this friend as I got involved in a conversation over at Fannie's Room regarding those people who wish to be seen as, to paraphrase Fannie, heroic allies of women or racial minorities (or QUILTBAG people or any other marginalized group) for the simplest and most basic things while they ignore subtler, more complex, and equally important (not to mention more common) manifestations of marginalization.

While I certainly agreed with the point Fannie was making, I took it one step further:

You know, I never really got this mentality.  I have no desire to be a "heroic feminist ally."  Quite frankly, doing so would strike me as making being a feminist ally all about me.  (Do I really need to spell out why this is problematic?)  Personally, I'd much prefer feminists give me an honest critique of where I do well and where I need to improve.

I want to expand on that point.  When a person is acting as an ally to others, it's not about them, and it's inappropriate and rude to make it about them.  People who wish to be an ally -- whether it's an ally to women, QUILTBAG people, racial minorities, or some other group -- need to understand this fact quite clearly.  Without doing so, one isn't much of an ally.

On those occasions that I write about feminist issues as a man -- or should I ever right about trans* issues as a cisgender man or racial issues as a white man -- I don't do so in order to gain praise.  I do so to help out women (or trans* people or people of other races), and I believe I wholeheartedly have a duty to do my best to help them.  Part of helping them means not drawing attention to or accolades for myself in the process.

That's why of all the blog posts I've ever written, the blog posts I write about women are probably the ones I think hardest about and fret the most over.  It's easy for me to write one about gay male sexuality, Pagan spirituality, or my past experiences as a fundamentalist.  I'm intimately familiar with those subjects on a personal level.  When I write about issues that affect women, I'm writing about someone else's experiences and struggles as an outsider.  That calls for great care and attention, because it's not about me at all.

And that's the way it should be.

Trigger Warning:  Brief mentions of homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, and rape culture.

There's a lot of good material to discuss in chapter seven of "Raised Right:  How I Untangled my Faith from Politics" by Alisa Harris.  However, for today's post, I want to focus on the following statement, made toward the end of the chapter:

Our gayness, blackness, whiteness, femaleness are not parts of a complete identity but our whole identity, elevated from an accident of birth to a political credo.  We become misshapen when all the spiritual and intellectual parts of our identity become merely political.

There have been a number of instances in the book so far where Ms. Harris has offered some wonderful and self-reflective insights into her experiences with conservative Christianity, only to incorrectly -- in my opinion at least -- projects those insights onto liberals, feminists, QUILTBAG people, and others.  As this particular instance is especially egregious in my mind, I want to take the time to draw attention to it.

There may be some truth, at least in some instances, to Ms. Harris's suggestion that one's race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or some other aspect of one's life that tends to take central stage, possibly to the exclusion of others.  As a gay man, I am particularly fond of the following line spoken by John Mahoney's character in "The Broken Hearts Club:"

Sometimes I wonder what you boys would do if you weren't gay. You'd have no identity. It was easy when you couldn't talk about it. Now it's all you talk about. You talk about it so much that you forget about all the other things that you are.

However, I think it's important to understand why this is often the case, which Timothy Olyphant's character in the same movie explains so well.  To paraphrase[1], he suggests that a lot of gay guys tend to spend so much time hiding, denying, and even trying to change who they are that when they finally come to accept their orientation, they feel like they "have a lot of catching up to do."

I think we can expand on that sentiment by considering the way in which people are marginalized, repressed, and dehumanized for being gay, female, trans* or a racial minority.  Whether we look at racism, transphobia, homophobia, or misogyny, the message that many in our society -- and the system itself -- sends to many such people is clear:  "You are not fully human because of who you are."

When someone's basic humanity is constantly[2] diminished, challenged, and denied because of some aspect of zirself then it is perfectly reasonable that defending zir humanity from those attacks, which means focusing on that aspect of zirself.  For women, racial minorities, and QUILTBAG people, defending their rights and devoting significant amounts of time is a matter of self-respect and even survival.  Comparing the amount of time that such marginalized people spend on those endeavors to the endeavors of the conservative political efforts -- efforts that often translate to the continuing marginalization of other people, is dubious at best.

I am thankful that Ms. Harris has rethought many of her previously held positions and untangled her faith from her politics.  However, when it comes to considering the plight of marginalized people and how they choose to handle that plight, I think she needs to think things through a bit more.

Notes:
[1]  Unfortunately, I couldn't find an exact quote online.

[2]  And the constant presence of such othering of various groups is something that people who do not belong to those groups[3] often miss.

[3]  And this is true among the various marginalized groups, even.  For example, I'm constantly amazed at just how pervasive the rape culture and other forms of misogyny is as I read feminist blogs.  Being gay does not automatically sensitize me to the struggles others face.

As I've considered thinking about Wednesday's post about the way various women are portrayed in the book "Destiny," I started wondering what I had hoped to accomplish with the post.  After all, it's not like I expect future authors of the Rogue Angel series to read my post and try to improve the series' portrayal of women.  I simply don't have that level of influence.

In many ways, I think I was engaging in a bit of navel-gazing, though I consider it much-needed navel-gazing.  You see, I've never picked up a book and given much thought to how many female characters there were, how those characters interacted, how they were portrayed, or what other notions about women were being reinforced -- implicitly or explicitly.

Having spent many months learning more about feminist thought and how society perceives and treats women from fantastic bloggers like Personal Failure, Fannie, Ana, and Mmy, I felt it would be a good exercise to step back, try to see past my own privilege, and consider my reading material in a different light.  In effect, I was seeking to become a better ally to women.

I must say, it was an enlightening experience.  In the course of seeking to recall the book and write a post about it, I found a number of problematic themes to write about -- more than I even originally expected to find.  These are things that I would have overlooked normally.  Or if I had noticed them at all, I would have shrugged them off as minor things, rationalizing that with such a powerful, independent woman like Annja as the main character, such things couldn't possibly matter.  The kickass woman made everything alright, right?

Well, no, I don't think so.  Positive and negative portrayals of women -- or any marginalized group, for that matter -- are not mutually exclusive, and the tendency to ignore the latter when the former is present only allows the negative ones to flourish in the culture.  So learning to spot these problematic themes is important.

I think for me, the best example of my normal oversight of this sort of thing came from when I went to write the post and could not remember any women in the story other than Annja.  I had originally boldly declared that the book failed the Bechdel test on that grounds alone.

And yet, as I mined the book for quotes and details for my posts, I ran into two other women in the story.  One woman (Maria) I had forgotten completely.  The other woman (the unnamed server), my brain had surreptitiously rewritten as a man, demonstrating that I'm still perfectly capable of assuming that a man is the default human.  That was not a comfortable realization, let me tell you.  I find myself wondering how many other women in the story I have invisibilized simply by forgetting about them or remaking them into men in my mind.

It would be easy to blame the culture and say that I only did these things because it's the way my upbringing and experiences have conditioned me to think and behave.  While that's certainly true, I think that's a terrible excuse.  After all, I am a part of that society and my actions contribute to the same conditioning of other people unless I do something about it.  And ultimately, I am the one person in the world I have control over.

So writing the post has further awakened me to something about the society and myself that I don't like.  So now I'm looking to change things by changing myself.  I am currently in the process of reading "Solomon's Jar," the second book in the Rogue Angel series, and I'm choosing to read it more mindfully.  I am looking out for female characters so that I can remember them.  I'm looking for problematic themes while reading them, rather than thinking about them after the fact.  I'm keeping an eye out for whatever messages the book might try to send me.  It'll be interesting to see what I have to say about the next book and my reaction to it.

If I can raise one or two other reader's awareness, that'll be a bonus.

This weekend, I finished reading the first book in Harlequin's "Rogue Angel" book series, "Destiny."  Overall, I enjoyed it, as I love stories about strong women.  I'm looking forward to reading about more of Annja Creed's adventures.

About halfway through the book, I also came across Ana Mardoll's Slacktiverse contribution in which she discusses the Bechdel Test.  Out of curiosity, I decided to consider how "Destiny" would fare.[1]   Besides Annja, I can readily find only one other female character in the book: a server at the restaurant Annja and Roux eat at after their first adventure together.  As it turns out, the two women have a brief conversation in which Annja verifies that her dining companion -- a man -- has run out, leaving her to pay the bill.  That conversation fails the test at point three.  Fortunately, Maria, the head chef in a small Cuban restaurant in New York, shows up in Chapter 19 to have a conversation with Annja.  Even though the conversation eventually turns to the young male cop Annja is about to meet, I'm willing to accept the fact that they spend about half a page talking about Annja's time out of the country first as a sign of passing the test.  I will note, however, that it took nineteen chapters (roughly 137 pages and half the book) to not only pass the test, but to introduce the third female character.
 
Now, I can certainly understand why many of the other main characters are men.  It makes sense that Roux and Garin would both be men, given their backstories.  I can also understand why the monks in the story are men.  I'll even grant that having Lesauvage be a man makes sense, given his love for the myth The Wild Hunt.[2]

However, there were a number of characters -- shopkeepers, restaurant staff, security guards, and police, that were either clearly marked as men or whose gender was never indicated.  It would have been quite easy to add more characters.  For that matter, it would have been easy to have Annja have the conversation that occurs upon her return to the bed and breakfast with Camille Lambert instead of her husband, Francois.  Camille is one of the women who are mentioned in the story, but never actually get to see in action and whose voice we never hear.

Another woman who was mentioned was Bart's girlfriend, who is not even named.  Personally, I found the mention of this girlfriend somewhat troubling, as the main purpose for mentioning her seemed to in order for Annja to feel jealous, and a rather strange sort of jealousy at that:

Annja didn't like the little ember of jealousy inside her.  She knew she didn't want commitment at this point in her life, but she'd iced the idea of having Bart kind of waiting in the wings.  She didn't like how casually that had just been taken off the table.  Or how she'd made the wrong assumptions about his feelings for her.  She felt foolish.

I'm a bit disturbed by this whole depiction of Annja as someone who doesn't really want this guy, but wants him to want her.  I will be honest that I'm particularly disturbed as the book is written by a man.[3]  As such, I find myself wondering if this is some thinly veiled "look at the games women play" misogynistic nonsense.

Even more troubling than Bart's unnamed girlfriend and Annja's reaction to learning of her existence is the references to Kristie Chatham, who is introduced as another woman who does segments for the show, "Chasing History's Monsters."  We learn quickly that Kristie has a number of outtakes (which made it on air) where her bikini fell off.  The narrator lets us know quite clearly what Annja thinks of Kristie:

For her [Kristie], history never went past her last drink and her last lover.

There you have it.  Annja not-so-secretly thinks that the other woman is nothing more than an unintellectual slut and lush.  Those are pretty harsh thoughts.

Of course, it's not just Annja who seems to feel that way.  Whenever the show comes up, the other characters -- invariably[4] men -- immediately mention the "woman with the wardrobe problem," and reassure Annja that she's much more intelligent and sensible than that.  It seems as though Annja's impressive intelligence and strength cannot be appreciated unless it's compared to some other woman's alleged failings.  That strikes me as deeply troubling.

Like I said, I liked this book.  And overall, I like the fact that it features a strong woman who can fight like a great warrior and has great intelligence and no small education.  However, that does not mean that there are not troubling aspects about this book and its portrayal of women in general and even some of Annja's own characteristics (like her attitudes towards some other women).  I find myself concerned about the messages the book might send or reinforce.  I'd be interested to hear what my female readers think of the book (if any of you have read it) and/or my thoughts on it.

Notes:
[1]  I understand that traditionally, the test is applied to movies and television shows, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be applied to books as well.  After all, books have characters (in some cases, more of them than you're average movie) and dialogue.  So I say it's fair game until someone gives me a good reason why it shouldn't be.

[2]  This does not, however, explain why all of his cult members were men.  Some of them could have been women, unless Lesauvage was being intentionally portrayed as misogynistic.  However, the author made no attempt to establish that trait for that character, and I"m not inclined to just to give the author the benefit of the doubt.

[3]  A little research told me that the name that appears on the books is a house name used for the series and that this particular book was written by a man named Victor Milan.

[4]  Take that with a grain of salt.   I admit that I've had to revise many statements I originally made about the book as I continued to thumb through my copy to find the details I planned on using in this post.  Originally, I couldn't remember any female characters being in the book besides Annja, just other women being mentioned by male characters.