Of all its failings, I suggest that the biggest failure of the Christian church (in The Bahamas) is its lack of a firm posture with respect to the equality of women, including the very women in its congregations, who support it in every possible capacity and on every important occasion.
At first glance, this failure is not apparent. But the inequalities experienced by women are deeply implanted in the customs of our people and these customs are deeply implanted in the Christian church, such that these inequalities are rooted in the very same church.
Women are regarded as "equal" in the church and in wider society until they oppose or divert from the norms and as long as they fit into the gender role of women as established by society, religion, and tradition.
The very core of the Christian church provides a hurdle to women's equality with the philosophy that women were made for men and must be acquired by them in marriage. Within Christianity, there is an underlying doctrine of possession of a woman by a husband (and of a man by a wife).
In a Christian society like ours, marriage is the highest level of human coexistence and the highest measure of social accomplishment, which many women and men seek to attain. And not only are men groomed to think that they own 'their' women, but women have also bought completely into the idea of possessing the men they marry.
But people cannot be owned and believing that they can be will always lead to conflict.
Every person is born a free individual with their individual rights and a separate identity. Even in a marriage, a woman and a man both have their own identities and, because of that, their own needs and desires.
Marrying someone does not erase the fact that they are their own person, and people who struggle in marriage will often tell you that whatever problem exists occurs most usually because one person in the marriage has an individual need that the other cannot or will not supply. And their need never changes because who they are, fundamentally - a separate and unique individual - does not change by the act of marriage. No matter how much you 'own' them, they still are who they are.
Our societal and cultural concept of relationships as methods of bestowing ownership interest on either person in a relationship and marriage being defined as giving up individual identity to become one entity, particularly when the parts that make up that unit are not whole in themselves, is structurally problematic.
If we could acknowledge this, and take a different approach to marriage as the joining of two separate people who keep their identities and sovereignties, we would be that much closer to admitting that a large part of the problem of domestic abuse and violence is the commonly upheld practice of trying or desiring to own a person.
The traditional outcome
Our country suffers a significant challenge in terms of gender inequality because gender inequality is directly linked to the way we perceive gender roles, which is something that is cultivated by our Christian and western philosophies, the latter being based in Christianity. In Eastern philosophy, Islam is responsible for the gender divide and the inequality of men and women. Elsewhere in the world, it is some other culture or tradition which is also centered on a religion that creates the inequality.
Unbeknownst to many, including myself, until I took the time out to examine it, Christianity and Islam share a very similar story of creation which declares that man was made first and woman was made from man and given to man to be his help and to save him from loneliness and war.
It sounds good in theory; today's women take delight in being called a gift, and so they perpetuate the concept of ownership and possession by choosing to be "given" to men through marriage. Women love to be owned; many men do, too. There is such pride in being possessed. And why? Because not only is it a hope to validate identity, it is what tradition tells us all should happen.
Tradition teaches a woman that she is not a whole person if she is not a married person. It's the same education given to a man, but with a clear advantage on his part because he's taught that he must lead and direct a woman and take charge of the household and everything in it, including the woman. This inevitably gets taken to the extreme and the end result is anything from some version of a small but hostile disagreement because of jealousy and possessiveness, to massive conflict which quickly and steadily disintegrates into something more disturbing and life-threatening.
Tradition and religion tell a woman to 'submit' because she was made for man. But she can't submit in just one way; she has to submit emotionally, spiritually, physically/sexually and financially. She must become a dependent. Her happiness must be defined by her husband's. Her achievements must rise or fall based on the movement of his. Her body must do what he wants it to do. And her financial well-being should rely on his. She must rely on the man's protection, provision and preaching to guide her and her children's lives, and anything else is an anomaly or an abomination against "God's plan" for men and women.
That is not equality.
And, because of this indoctrination, some in the church will argue that men and women were never made to be equal.
Therein lies the problem.
Obviously, the equality of women is far more legitimate than the teachings of the church will allow. Women's rights and equality go to battle against thousands of years of religious tradition upon which entire nations are built, and which, curiously, have been governed by men for thousands of years. A casual glance around our society emphasizes that religion and law are still intertwined and ruled by men. Is it any wonder, then, that as women we find ourselves fighting today in our Bahamas for the basic constitutional right of citizenship for our children?
But, can we stop for a moment to consider that it is entirely possible, if we can bend our heads around this concept, for all people to maintain their religious faiths and still recognize that women exist for more than the needs of men?
Equality through enriched thinking
What all women must learn early on, as girls, is that there is no requirement to attach yourself to someone in order to be someone. Clearly this is more difficult to accept and achieve in some countries than others, but that is the very reason why in those same countries women end up raped, battered, burned with acid, stoned and mutilated.
Stretching the mind a little further, think of all the things you can accomplish in marriage. Can they not also be accomplished outside of marriage? The only real impediment to accomplishing them outside of marriage is that you live in a society built on a Christian tradition which tells you that as a woman/man, you need to have a husband/wife in order to get anything or to be anything, and the entire society is structured around this principle.
All of these are disempowering philosophies for girls and for women, which lower them to positions of subservience and subject them to all types of abuse. This does not make for a progressive nation.
When you have a male talk show host on a station owned and managed by women asking "How much more rights do women want?", because some are pushing for a constitutional referendum and a subsequent constitutional amendment, you have to ask yourself, "How progressive are we, really, in our thinking about the equality of women and men?"
And in our country, how can we advocate for equal opportunity and equal pay for women, when we can't mandate equal citizenship rights for their children?
That one right is fundamental to every other right, but those with the responsibility to put it to the people and have it dealt with once and for all prefer, instead, to discuss their salaries, subsidies and stipends.
Sadly, pushing aside the serious and more difficult questions in favor of the less significant and easier questions, while continuing to ignore the obvious problem, is also a tradition.
Now, are we going to leave the situation as is because it is just easier to keep doing what we've been doing all along, in other words, abiding by our tradition?
o Nicole Burrows in an academically trained economist. She can be contacted at: nicole.burrows@outlook.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian