Feminism

[bèlla]

Sure. I think one of the major issues is autonomy in general, since there's a very serious difference between the way the secular and Christian worlds approach the notion of freedom.

I agree and I’m glad you mentioned this. In my opinion, having a different viewpoint doesn’t necessitate division or the idea you’re my enemy. Our shared position in Christ exceeds all of that and we’re expected to rise above them in light of our brotherhood. We shouldn’t mimic the behaviors we see in society.

Our faith makes us more tolerant and willing to listen to the other person—irrespective of our position—because we love our neighbor.

Feminism in particular has many, many deep-set issues with the notion of submission, which I think is both helpful and harmful in the Christian context.

I don’t recall encountering a feminist who can reconcile the issue of submission. Many seem opposed to male authority of any sort. Even though we know that everyone can’t be in charge or in control.

Harmful, because feminists will often turn this sort of analysis against theology itself and frame God as the ultimate oppressive patriarchal figure.

I’ve seen that. I don’t think most are desiring oppression for either. But there are moments when it appears that some wish to alter God’s attributes to bring them in line with theirs.

I've even seen some Christian feminist theologians go down this route, and it strikes me as both idolatrous and kind of myopic. Submission in the sacred and secular contexts are very different things, and we shouldn't conflate them. (Unfortunately, when it comes to church hierarchies, this can be easier said than done.)

I concur. I’ve read works by Jewish and Christian feminist theologians and wonder if we’re reading the same text. You are the first to mention idolatry and that’s an astute observation. I love your balanced viewpoints.

Feminism is a form of idolatry when taken to excess. It supersedes faith and becomes the individual’s credo without their knowledge.

I think feminism is often very reductionistic when it addresses these sorts of issues, and that a lot of it doesn't really work in the Christian context, where elements of what I'd consider traditionally "passive" femininity are actually recast as the ideal for all of humanity instead of being devalued. I'm not sure that's something that gets discussed much by anyone, though.

Why do you think passive femininity is overlooked?

 

[Silmarien]

I don’t recall encountering a feminist who can reconcile the issue of submission. Many seem opposed to male authority of any sort. Even though we know that everyone can’t be in charge or in control.

Well, I wasn't thinking about submission only in the context of gender relationships, but more broadly than that. Vulnerability and dependence are frowned upon by the feminist movement in general, and these are all things that you need to embrace in the religious context. We are not in control, male or female, and we have this overwhelming modern conviction that we should be.

That said, probably unsurprisingly, I do not care for the idea of submitting to male authority, at least in a unilateral sense. I think the sort of mutual yielding that is encouraged in 1 Corinthians is preferable to what we see in Ephesians. The problem inherent with telling husbands to perform the role of Christ in a marriage is that they are not Christ. They are human, and sinful, and it is hard to see how putting that sort of burden on them could be anything but a recipe for disaster.

I was reading Augustine's Confessions recently, and while he's one of my favorite theologians, I think it's very telling the way he takes for granted that husbands will beat their wives. The way his mother Monica is quoted there as talking about submission to one's husband is explicitly linked to what would now be considered domestic abuse, and that's something that really needs to be discussed.

I concur. I’ve read works by Jewish and Christian feminist theologians and wonder if we’re reading the same text. You are the first to mention idolatry and that’s an astute observation. I love your balanced viewpoints.

They're not always all that balanced, haha. Living on the fault line of the culture wars can make me reactionary in unpredictable ways.

Have you ever read Sarah Coakley? She's an Anglican theologian in the liberal Anglo-Catholic camp who specifically talks about contemplative submission. I am fond of the sort of "old-meets-new" mixture of Patristic thought and modern theory in general, and she's a good representative of that in the context of feminist theory.

Why do you think passive femininity is overlooked?

Because one side struggles to relate positively to the notion of submission, whereas the other side can't really convincingly talk about women at all. What I'm intrigued by is the intersection between spirituality and sexuality, and the role that female sexuality in particular plays in a lot of the religious metaphors out there. You see it right there in the Song of Solomon, and I don't think is all that rare in mystical literature either.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't actually read Paul as particularly patriarchal. Being a secular feminist, I was basically raised on the idea that it was Paul (and then Augustine) who had ruined Christianity for women, but when I actually read the Pauline Epistles, I was surprised by how off the mark that ultimately was.

Because there is a lot of interaction between Paul and female figures in those letters. He is often in contact with Priscilla and Aquila, never directing himself solely to Aquila but always to the couple as a unit (with the wife sometimes being mentioned first, oddly enough). Also of interest is Phoebe, whom he sends to Rome as his emissary, so while there are a couple strongly patriarchal passages in his writings, I think they're the exception, not the norm to what we actually see from Paul.

Maybe Paul wasn't super patriarchal himself, as possibly evidenced by his tone and personal regard toward women, as you note.

But in the strictly expository portions of his writing we find deeply some patriarchal instructions. And in Bible interpretation, people seem to value explicit instructions and commands over tone and even personal example, for better or worse.

 

[zephcom]

they'll have to wait until they can equal the men's revenue and viewership worldwide and not just in the US. they're still way behind in that regard.

point of all this is that while there are pay gaps, they're because of money, not gender inequality.

And when they do that, we will suddenly discover that they also have to beat the men's revenue from the entire galaxy, huh?

Men do this 'move the goal posts' all the time. It is a great little game to keep them working to line the pockets of the capitalist while not being required to pay women fairly.

BTW, it is also a well used ploy against allowing equality for minorities.

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe Paul wasn't super patriarchal himself, as possibly evidenced by his tone and personal regard toward women, as you note.

But in the strictly expository portions of his writing we find deeply some patriarchal instructions. And in Bible interpretation, people seem to value explicit instructions and commands over tone and even personal example, for better or worse.

Yes, I agree. There are definitely a couple strongly patriarchal passages, but there are also statements like "no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female," which are quite the opposite.

I wouldn't deny that Paul has been used throughout the centuries to justify some pretty awful things, but when actually reading him, I was surprised by how little of this there was, relatively speaking. Even when it does show up, it is sometimes characterized by a more even-handed treatment: "wives, obey your husbands," for example, is complemented with, "husbands, love your wives," which is a pretty stark difference from a lot of what was going on in Antiquity.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

And when they do that, we will suddenly discover that they also have to beat the men's revenue from the entire galaxy, huh?

Men do this 'move the goal posts' all the time. It is a great little game to keep them working to line the pockets of the capitalist while not being required to pay women fairly.

BTW, it is also a well used ploy against allowing equality for minorities.

Serena Williams didn't have to wait for any of that. She already makes tons of money. Same for Danica Patrick.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

A very strong statement. Do you agree with him?

Well I believe he was basing it on the destructive effects it evidently had on the order.

Feminism is a tool of the devil. The usual pattern of seductive unfulfilling promises of empowerment akin to the French Revolution to the poor or Marxism to the worker, but instituted by the powers and principalities to serve their own agenda. The devil only requires people to put their own perceived interests first in order to take their souls.

 

[A_Thinker]

Well I believe he was basing it on the destructive effects it evidently had on the order.

Feminism is a tool of the devil. The usual pattern of seductive unfulfilling promises of empowerment akin to the French Revolution to the poor or Marxism to the worker, but instituted by the powers and principalities to serve their own agenda. The devil only requires people to put their own perceived interests first in order to take their souls.

Feminism is a tool, which has been used for good in the past, and has the potential for good in the present and future.

The problem is not feminism ... it is the fact that our society required such a tool in the first place. Feminism really is, simply, a focus on the issues faced by women in society. Its existence ... is an INDICATOR ... that all is not well.

Unfortunately, the rash of the uncovering of indecent behavior committed against women ... demonstrates that such a tool is still needed. If women were being treated equally in society ... feminism would vanish ...

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Feminism is a tool, which has been used for good in the past, and has the potential for good in the present and future.

The problem is not feminism ... it is the fact that our society required such a tool in the first place. Feminism really is, simply, a focus on the issues faced by women in society. Its existence ... is an INDICATOR ... that all is not well.

Unfortunately, the rash of uncovering of indecent behavior committed against women ... demonstrates that such a tool is still needed. If women were being treated equally in society ... feminism would vanish ...

On the radio they were talking about a study of women's role in the early church. You see, the devil's subtle. He doesn't just come out, he seduces. 'Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.' (James 1:14). And when the focus has been turned from Christ - bang! gotcha!

Of course all is not well, the world is run by the devil and is full of darkness. You can show me all kinds of metrics in a vain effort to prove feminism is making the world better and women happier across the board. Like Marxism just created a pay-your-own-way alternative to serfdom, so feminism just creates a new pool of worker ants and debt slaves, all in the name of freeing women from masculinist oppression. What a sick joke.

So what does it profit anyone to gain the whole world if only to lose their soul?

 

[ThievingMagpie]

On the radio they were talking about a study of women's role in the early church. You see, the devil's subtle. He doesn't just come out, he seduces. 'Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.' (James 1:14). And when the focus has been turned from Christ - bang! gotcha!

Of course all is not well, the world is run by the devil and is full of darkness. You can show me all kinds of metrics in a vain effort to prove feminism is making the world better and women happier across the board. Like Marxism just created a pay-your-own-way alternative to serfdom, so feminism just creates a new pool of worker ants and debt slaves, all in the name of freeing women from masculinist oppression. What a sick joke.

So what does it profit anyone to gain the whole world if only to lose their soul?

I'm assuming by the fact that you can afford to operate a computer and an internet connection that you also have some way of earning and are therefore a "worker ant." Do you consider your soul lost or is it only aspirational women that have fallen into this particular pitfall?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I'm assuming by the fact that you can afford to operate a computer and an internet connection that you also have some way of earning and are therefore a "worker ant." Do you consider your soul lost or is it only aspirational women that have fallen into this particular pitfall?

Sure, if men are 'free' to pursue their vain delusions, selling their souls for money and status, why not women as well? Let's all drink the tasty Kool-aid from that poisoned well and 'trip out' that we can save ourselves.

Sure, I'm like a worker under Soviet Communism - I pretend to work and they pretend to pay me.

But seriously, I'm talking about keeping Jesus at the centre, not our self-aggrandisement. That principle doesn't exclude women from the workforce, but it does promote a certain economy. For more information, please refer to a little book we like to call the Holy Bible.

 

[Nithavela]

Sure, if men are 'free' to pursue their vain delusions, selling their souls for money and status, why not women as well? Let's all drink the tasty Kool-aid from that poisoned well and 'trip out' that we can save ourselves.

Sure, I'm like a worker under Soviet Communism - I pretend to work and they pretend to pay me.

But seriously, I'm talking about keeping Jesus at the centre, not our self-aggrandisement. That principle doesn't exclude women from the workforce, but it does promote a certain economy. For more information, please refer to a little book we like to call the Holy Bible.

Matthew 19:21

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Matthew 19:21

May I just keep but one guitar, Lord?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, I agree. There are definitely a couple strongly patriarchal passages, but there are also statements like "no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female," which are quite the opposite.

I wouldn't deny that Paul has been used throughout the centuries to justify some pretty awful things, but when actually reading him, I was surprised by how little of this there was, relatively speaking. Even when it does show up, it is sometimes characterized by a more even-handed treatment: "wives, obey your husbands," for example, is complemented with, "husbands, love your wives," which is a pretty stark difference from a lot of what was going on in Antiquity.

Hmm. Maybe Paul was actually somewhat progressive for his time, even as some of his prescriptions havent "aged well".

Anyway, always interesting to hear your take on things. And welcome back. Werent you at religious festivals in Seville or something? Did you post about that here?

 

[Larniavc]

I meant the true social order; men at work, mom at home.

Not so. It is ‘a’ social order of a few generations ago.

One which is becoming less and relevant in most western democracies.

As times move on people who cleave to historical social orders will become like the Amish are to modern people: a curiosity.

 

[Larniavc]

and now you gotta figure out if more people were watching when a certain person was on that couch than another and if they are being paid accordingly.

if it's truly all the same as far as ratings for everyone on the couch, then you have a case.

To be fair, as they are news readers on the BBC they are not allowed to comment on the news (only to report it) their individual levels of ability (beyond a certain level of competence) are irrelevant.

Coupled with that viewing figures for the news rarely vary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I agree. There are definitely a couple strongly patriarchal passages, but there are also statements like "no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female," which are quite the opposite.

I wouldn't deny that Paul has been used throughout the centuries to justify some pretty awful things, but when actually reading him, I was surprised by how little of this there was, relatively speaking. Even when it does show up, it is sometimes characterized by a more even-handed treatment: "wives, obey your husbands," for example, is complemented with, "husbands, love your wives," which is a pretty stark difference from a lot of what was going on in Antiquity.

..."yes" to all of that, Silmarien. But I might add that part of the problem people may be having with some of those really "teethy" remarks that Paul seems to make about the place of women in church and society come about because when reading and often interpreted these passages in the Bible, people do so by reading nothing but the Bible alone. (Of course.....you knew this already, I know. But not everyone else seems to...)

Sometimes, particularly with passages such as the one's Paul seems to have written about "women's place(s)," it would help immensely if we could all apply at least a little bit of Hermeneutical acumen (and the effort that actually goes with that) and learn to see how these books and letters were written in, and against at times, the surrounding culture in which they were, in real time and space, written.

And I'm not saying the above because I'm so brilliant; no, I'm drawing from the writing of the late Christian feminist, Catherine Clark Kroeger, in order to say all of this. [Thank you, Lord, for enabling sister Catherine to help me gain a better sense for these things!]

 

[durangodawood]

Not so. It is ‘a’ social order of a few generations ago.

One which is becoming less and relevant in most western democracies.

As times move on people who cleave to historical social orders will become like the Amish are to modern people: a curiosity.

I know too many women who are really good at the work they do. Its absurd to think shut off from that work for life.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not so. It is ‘a’ social order of a few generations ago.

One which is becoming less and relevant in most western democracies.

As times move on people who cleave to historical social orders will become like the Amish are to modern people: a curiosity.

Regardless, it's the best foundational social order, and badly needed as we see society falling apart.

 

[durangodawood]

....Sometimes, particularly with passages such as the one's Paul seems to have written about "women's place(s)," it would help immensely if we could all apply at least a little bit of Hermeneutical acumen (and the effort that actually goes with that) and learn to see how these books and letters were written in, and against at times, the surrounding culture in which they were, in real time and space, written.....

There's intense pushback from many Christians to understanding anything in the Bible as culturally contingent.