From this post by Dianna E Anderson, she covered all the egalitarian and femininity aspects quite thoroughly and you should read it all, but I wanted to poke specifically at this:
What Ensor reads as complementarianism is actually strict gendered roles that frequently confine and box in female athletes who take to this sport – it is not necessarily an example of complementing strengths in the vein of theological gender roles. Rather, pairs figure skating acts as an example of the tired preservation the double burden that women face – the need to be unbelievably feminine while also having enough strength to perform at the same level as men. Ensor’s shallow reading fails to contextualize what we are actually seeing, and therefore missing larger points about the ways in which gender is performed and how these pairs work in mutuality, not complementarity. He is imposing his worldview onto an idea that resists such a reading at every turn, a practice indicative of a larger desire to simplify the stories that surround us every day.
Unfortunately, when all you see is the literal surface, simple is all you’ll get.
oh the ways in which this allegory or whatever of Ensor’s exemplifies the way that complementarians view everything through a skewed lens that imposes what they want to see at a surface level onto what is actually there, and then take it at that shallow, flat face value and insist that it is all there is. skating is bad enough, but they do this to literally everything they touch or look at.
the fact that they do this to the bible makes me want to weep and scream and explode with rage purely as a linguist before we even get to the insult to faith part. there are so many layers, so much rich depth and so many angles to look at things from, so much history and tradition encompassed and implied, and the prism of languages that we read it through is only one of the things that texturizes and colours it. it’s an amazing text, purely as an ancient text, whether you believe it or not. that only adds more layers, if you will.
but they smash it all ruthlessly, mercilessly flat and blithely ignore everything about it that makes it unique and instructive for a christian life. empty and shallow and ultimately, lifeless and dead. a thinly sliced shadow of it’s true light and possibility.