If I were to write a second draft, then I would eliminate all the misspellings and typos. I would take out the S-word and the F-word. I would talk about Anne Lamott in the abstract too, giving propositions on hermeneutics and exegetics and Barbara syllogistics and such. It would not be creative. It would not be colo(u)rful. It would not be narrative. It would probably contain no french words like l'écriture féminine, et si oui, alors il ne serait pas les traduire. (Please pardon my French!) I would make you get my intention without the need for your interpretation. I would courageously exercise my writer's rights at the expense of your readerly timidity. You would have to thank me for being so clear, for communicating with lucidity, with such transparency, with such ease. You could just sit back in your easy chair, just thinking that, without even thinking about your body, or mine, or anybody's.
But on second thought, maybe I'd just let you do some of the enjoyable stuff for yourself in your own skin. And I'd want to remind you of what Rod of Alexandria reminds some of us of:
Amanda Mac of Political Jesus and Cheese-wearing theology provides us with a list of women theo-bloggers/bibliobloggers that she reads: Blogs I Read: A Shout Out To Women.I'd link to his entire post, BODIES CONFRONTING TRADITION
You would discover some history of Northern British Columbia, from Suzanne McCarthy, whom one male blogger still makes his own game out of censoring.
For some reason or another, then, you might even think of some history out of Toronto, Montreal, and back to Vancouver. What's this all have to do with Anne Lamott, you might ask. Right, huh, I'd ask. And would say, as if I knew her well, doesn't her son's father who abandoned her live in Vancouver? We might agree, Oooh. So, I'm just sayin. What's more relevant to you, and to me: Principles about Bible reading all cleaned up in a second draft or real life as much as we, on second thought, find sexism, too much of it still, right here?