The Problem Without a Name
Editor’s Note: The following excellent article is a guest submission from a frequent Political Cartel commenter, Neffs. Enjoy!
The phrase is similar to one famously used by Betty Friedan, in 1963 in her book The Feminine Mystique, to describe a feeling experienced by women of the time, that among their domestic chores and child-rearing and largely sequestered and marginalized lives, they feel the lingering question, ‘is this all there is?’ And I’ve come to believe that the problem existed but was not at all unique to those women of the 1950s and 60s in the United States, but rather has existed in some form since the birth of modern mankind. Friedan and her contemporaries were merely touching the heel of the animal in the dark, unable to see it or completely recognize its form.
Women’s lives have revolved around domesticity and child-rearing for centuries, for millennia, because that is the role they have been given. Not by God, or Allah, or Yahweh, or Rama, but by everyday men, the men of their times. Women have, with few exceptions, not been the mammoth-killers, or the feudal lords, or the apprenticed tradesmen, or the factory workers, or the bond traders, because those roles have been taken by men, relegating women to the support role, to being available for sex and then when the children that come from sex arrive, to caring for those children and keeping a home. In modern times, those roles come with the rite of marriage and the work of housekeeping, but throughout human history, that role has not fundamentally changed.
Which is perhaps why in 2008, the most damning and heartbreaking thing that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton was to hear at one of her rallies was an entreaty to “iron my shirt.” We believe that now in the modern United States women have legal rights equal to those of men (in most cases) and most of the old practices are now socially frowned upon, so we no longer have a problem. The Clinton candidacy and the public reaction to it served to show again the heel of the problem without a name; gender inequities exist and persist, down to microscopic levels in the culture at large.
In the 2006 independent “F**k: A Documentary,” etymologists are asked to explain the origins of what is widely considered the most vulgar word in the English language (a spoiler: none of the acronym explanations are true). One suggests that because the word is descriptive of being sexually breached or penetrated, it describes the most personal and intimate way you can dominate someone, so that saying ‘F**k you’ to anyone, man or woman, is the linguistic equivalent of humping their leg or mounting them.
I bring this up only because I think it’s crucial to understanding not only the ways that men treat and conceptualize women, but also the way that heterosexual men treat and conceptualize homosexual men. In countless legal, moral, religious and ethical standards, sexual receptivity is seen as lesser, as weakness, as sinful, as criminal. Sexual insertivity is seen as preferred, as a sign of strength or mastery. You cannot escape the physical in attempting to explain the social and cultural.
It is easier to explain the roles of women and men as prescribed by the world’s great religions as following the ancient, prehistoric truth of how men and women have behaved toward each other than it is with a divine source. All of the world’s major religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism, teach that women are to have less standing than men. All of them teach that women are to physically, economically and socially submit to men.
I believe that these religious precepts exist because they reflect the ancient struggle of men to corral, control and retain women, not as fellow humans with equal rights and self-determination, but as a valuable commodity. When we try to make these religious precepts logically jibe with what we know of modern, relatively liberated dealings between women and men, we encounter the problem without a name. Any god claiming to be the god of divine justice and fairness would not create or abide a system that favors one type of human over another. Any god claiming to be the arbiter of eternal salvation would not create or abide a set of rules that is different for attaining salvation for one type of human over another. Any attempt to explain away the fundamental unfairness of those modern religions as divinely inspired and beyond our ability to comprehend is an insult to such a god.
I’ve often heard in the last couple of years that Islam is a ‘desert religion’ and reflective of the harsh environment where its practitioners have lived, but is it really all that different from the ‘desert religion’ practiced by churches of Christ in West Texas? Is the Sharia command for a woman to ‘preen’ at the demand of her husband really all that different from a state where it’s illegal to have a sex toy sales party in a private home? They are both concerned with keeping women in a state of servile deference and sexual availability, propping up male privilege and focused intently on punishment.
I also do not believe that if ancient women had somehow gotten the advantage over ancient men, that life and religion would be somehow better. I do not believe in the inherent virtuousness of women; I believe that it’s a myth created to comfort women and increase their likelihood to go along with things as they are. I think that women are just as capable of ruthless and selfish behavior as men are.
We are given free will. As a longtime apostate, it’s easy for me to sit back and hurl stones at the windows. There is much good in the world’s religions and in the local church; there are people being fed, clothed, helped with drug addiction and poverty, supported through struggles, taught to read, loved when they have no one to love them. That is the fundamental good of churches, and I’m not suggesting that the places be torn down. I’m only suggesting that gender equity be looked at frankly and apart from the cultural context where it was created. And that the question be asked, is inequity really of God, or is it possible that there is another, more plausible explanation?
You might be interested in a book I’m reading now called Finally Feminist by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. I’m not finished with it yet, so this is not a blanket endorsement, but his premise is that the Bible is a document that addressed society as it was but contained “seeds” of change that would lead to the type of society God actually desires and approves. One example he uses is Paul’s seeming endorsement of slavery, yet Christianity later being a force for its abolition. He argues that the same ideas hold true for feminism.
Good point, Stephanie. How about gay rights? Same thing there?
i’m pretty sure gender inequity did actually come from god (assuming there is a god). if god created woman than he/she created ovaries, uteruses, pregnancy, and childbirth. if god created childbirth then he/she is responsible for the 1/3 chance of childbirth related death, which has been the universal norm for all but the past 100+ years or so. god would have also created the 9 month physical burden of pregnancy that was even more debilitating back when there was a 1/3 chance of dying from it than it is now.
if god created the earth then he/she is responsible for the physical demands of agricultural success, which, before the industrial revolution, were many sets of hands.
So, combine the human need to eat with the serious health risks of pregnancy and childbirth, and you end up with the subjugation of women.
@DMM–I skipped ahead and found that Stackhouse does address the subject. I haven’t read all of it, but basically it looks like his argument is this: Christians should “continue to work for full justice for all” and “fight for the fundamental human rights” of homosexuals; yet he does not see this issue as parallel to slavery or feminism, for “while there is significant tension in the Bible regarding slavery . . . and gender . . . there is no such tension regarding homosexuality. Instead, he says that the Bible is “univocal” and “not arbitrary” on the matter.
Whoops. There should be end quotes after “no such tension regarding homosexuality.”
Stephanie,
I don’t want to derail the thread and make it all about gay rights, but it is relevant to the article.
I think that kind of argument illustrates the idea that everyone reads what they want to out of the Bible. Christians didn’t find any tension at all in the Bible regarding slavery until just a few generations ago. Some of them still don’t see any tension on gender (I have been to some of those churches, ha!). I think that an honest reading of the text does not show any inherent tension coming through from the authors/original intent.
It’s not necessarily an invalid position, if that is indeed what Stackhouse is arguing. I think it is possible to make that argument, but there is no way to defend against the assumption that future generations will “find” significant tension in the Bible and its principles regarding homosexuality. In fact, given the current trend in mainstream Christian thought, I think that is extremely likely.
Maybe next on the list is finding tension on the issue of other religions being wrong.
Forgive how this sounds, but there is a point: I feel like what I’ve just read above had to have been penned in some dark past and not in the 21st century.
One underlying premise in “Neffs’” essay is that the brains of men and women are essentially interchangeable: men and women are substantively identical and that any differences are merely perceived and the result of social conditioning. Another underlying premise is that maleness is the standard of femaleness: what men do for work, play and meaning are the summum bonum that women can and should aim for. Men define the highest goals, the highest achievements. A Fields Award in mathematics is far more important than mothering a child (or so it goes).
Readers should study Susan Pinker’s outstanding book, The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, And The Real Gender Gap (2008). It will bring into bold relief the many problems presented in the essay published above. Essentially Neffs’ essay is full of archaisms and, if a clearer understanding in Christian theology is desired, those archaisms need to be tossed.
Peace.
BG
Okay, you just used the words ‘summum bonum,’ whatever that means, to call me old. :)
A couple of points about archaic-ness. First I deliberately intended to say that basically the problems feminist writers were addressing in the 60s are still around today, and second, can you name a feminist writer who has busted something out since Friedan or Steinem who is more relevant? Shortly after the heyday of modern American feminism in the 70s, the word got tarred right along with liberal in the popular culture. Nothing aggravates me more than to hear a 25 year old dissemble about how she’s not a feminist. Because you know, then maybe the boys wouldn’t like her.
Also, I actually do believe that men and women are more alike than they are different. I really believe that if gender history had gone on the way it has with the simple flip of women being the ‘ones in charge’ and men being the ‘submitters’ things would look a lot like they do today. And a lot of cherished ideas about how different we are, hormone brain chemicalpants, would be seen for what they are–cherished ideas that aren’t actually true.
Neffs,
If women and men are essentially interchangeable, as you suggest, then it does not matter if a woman ever becomes president, a supreme court justice, or an astronaut. That is basically what you’ve just said:
“I really believe that if gender history had gone on the way it has with the simple flip of women being the ‘ones in charge’ and men being the ’submitters’ things would look a lot like they do today.”
If what you’ve said is true, what does feminism have to offer? Apparently, according to you, nothing.
What is clearly evident is that the feminists you mentioned all measured themselves against men. These feminists did not urge men to be more stereotypically female — stay at home, have kids, do housework, make dinner — but instead urged women to be more stereotypically male, i.e., get a career, work outside the home, forgo family for fortune, etc. In essence, then, feminism defines itself in traditionally male terms: it is contingent on the aspirations and values determined not by women themselves, but by the men who have defined success, worth, achievement, and so on. Hence, feminism is itself passive and submissive: it affirms men’s view of the world and reconstitutes womanhood according to that view.
Therefore, feminism is not pro-female. It’s pro-male. Feminism is contingent; it is dependent upon what men do and think. It is not essentially female. In the end, it is imitative and derivative.
To feminists, it seems, the default gender is male. Is that what you actually believe?
Bliss.
BG
Bill, with all due respect I think you’re being deliberately dense. If the ‘default gender’ by which feminists measure women is men, we didn’t do that. It was set up that way by the rules of society–guess what, set up by men. Women and men’s roles are not interchangeable because the ones that belong to men are the only ones that seem to pay. Women still have to put out sexually to be supported–in a marriage with children, as you’re suggesting, and careers that traditionally belong to women–teaching, nursing–don’t pay well.
Also, for your passive and submissive comment, have you ever considered that maybe the reason women today tend toward the passive and submissive is because their mouthier ancient foremothers got bashed in the skull with rocks for their troubles instead of getting dragged back to the cave? I think a lot of what we consider to be innate differences between men and women today are in actuality the product of natural selection.
You can keep your bliss there skippy.
I have to say, Bill Gnade is making some excellent points.
Too bad Neffs is unable to respond in kind, because I think the debate is a worthy one to have.
But as long as Neffs states “I think you’re being deliberately dense” (likely translation: I am unable or unwilling to discuss your post on its merits, so I will “respectfully” insult you instead) and “You can keep your bliss there skippy” (likely translation: thanks for posting, but I’d prefer that you kept your opinions to yourself), then it is clear to me that some would simply prefer to discuss their views among like-minded people.
As an aside, Neffs, your comment that “Women still have to put out sexually to be supported” is ridiculous. Not only does it perpetuate a “victim mentality” (which I have no doubt that many attempt to use to their advantage), but it completely and totally ignores reality.
Okay, I’m supposed to apologize to you guys for being a little shirty after a post about how women are supposed to be servile and deferential to men and how men have exploited that? Oh for irony.
I really don’t want you to keep your opinions to yourself, even if they’re diametrically opposed to mine, or I wouldn’t have written the post in the first place.
Honestly, I don’t think that he was making good points. His first comment was that my post seemed like something out of the distant past; my response was that I was making the point that it still hasn’t changed much. His second comment was basically to discredit feminism as a whole because it was about women seeking to be like men, instead of encouraging men to be more like women. (My rejoinder to that would be: we should all try to be like people and endeavor to give each other a lot less crap based solely on our genders.) The thing that’s problematic about dismissing feminism is . . why do you want to do that? What’s your motivation there? Feminism is simply the belief that women should be treated equally to men. If you’re anti-feminism, you’re basically saying, okay, I don’t think they are equal. Pretty troglodytic behavior.
As for your last bit Random Poster, that’s the first time anybody has really talked about the core of my argument, so congrats on that. If it completely and totally ignores reality, then you go through your family and friends and tote up how much the women make and how much the men make–and don’t count spouses’ incomes as income. As long as that imbalance exists, then women have to put out sexually to be supported. That is the hard cold fact. I’m not talking about the leading edge of women and men–equality has come a long way among them. I’m talking about your cousin with the minimum wage job who has to rely on her really kind of crappy husband who has the slightly better manufacturing job. I’m talking about those poor women in Afghanistan who have to endure marital rape. I’m saying that we cluck and shame about those women but there are women here in the United States whose lot isn’t a whole lot better, and institutions including the church of Christ are complicit in their suffering. This is one of those problems that won’t be fixed until it’s fixed for everybody.
In further support of my posting dated May 3, 2009, at or around 1:17 p.m. (which can be found below), and as an additional statement regarding any alleged wage imbalance, see this recent posting on the ABA Journal webpage:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/many_women_lawyers_with_kids_do_as_well_as_the_men_researcher_says/
Neffs,
Yes, yes. I am being deliberately dense, sort of like an oak tree is deliberately dense. Or gold. Or osmium.
No one has asked you to apologize or defer or concede or submit. You are inventing a problem without a cause … or a name.
Random Poster is exactly right: you are presenting women as victims. This only reinforces the idea that women are intrinsically UNLIKE men: women are too stupid NOT to be carried off to the cave. Your sense of history only reinforces that which you apparently abhor, namely that women are perceived as weak, passive, inept. You’re actually contributing, or so it seems, to the oppression of women.
However, let’s talk about density for a moment — I mean “destiny.” You just finished saying that there are basically no differences between men and women and yet you have shown two ways in which they are essentially different. The first is what you’ve said already: women are rather good at being victims of male superiority. The second is this: innate differences, or so you insist, are really just the product of “natural selection” (your words).
Surely you see the problem. Natural selection is NOT synonymous with classic social conditioning; you referred to conditioning in your initial thoughts posted here. Innate differences ARE a function of natural selection. In other words, things evolve precisely because they possess intrinsic (and sometimes extrinsic) advantages over other organisms. Survival of the fittest is not “survival of those who are conditioned by dominant males.”
You must also see that you’ve avoided everything asked of you. If men and women are essentially interchangeable, why should there ever be a woman president? If women are equal to men in all ways, how is that women have been so easily victimized by men as you have just posited? The subjugation of women had to begin sometime: who conditioned the conditioners if conditioning explains everything?
It is evident that you continue to embrace a rather old paradigm, one very much found wanting. It is also evident, as noted by Random Poster, that you are not actually interested in exploring this topic. You’ve arrived. I believe in the intrinsic value and power of women; I accept they actually outperform men — generally — in nearly all academic tests. But I reject the idea that women should define themselves by the alleged expectations of men. I reject as oppressive the claim that women should perform in all arenas traditionally dominated by men merely for the sake of some idolized convention (adored by conditioners) of equality. Men and women are ridiculously and innately different, contrary to what you’ve asserted here. My hope is that women would stop believing the lies men have created about meaning, value, achievement, success and worth. And I pray women will stop believing the oppressive lives perpetuated by feminists who have completely bought into the male-is-the-default human BS.
Corporate, academic, political and economic success and standing: if all of these, as YOU said, are inventions of men (which I’ve also stipulated), then for women to pursue these is merely to affirm these as THE ideals for women. In other words, feminism is the AFFIRMATION of a male world. THAT, I am sorry to say, OPPRESSES women.
According to Ms. Pinker’s book, which I cited above, it took the creators of Sesame Street (talk about people committed to social engineering) nearly four decades to create a puppet with distinctly female characteristics:
“[the show's] producers had long been stymied in creating a female lead puppet out of the anxiety that any girl-like features would play into stereotypes. ‘If Cookie Monster was a female character, she’d be accused of being anorexic or bulimic,’ said the show’s executive producer. Especially after the indignant reaction to the ‘Muppet Show’s’ Miss Piggy, it just seemed safest to reflect the common assumption that male was the default setting for both sexes. Male puppets — whether flightless birds, hairy monsters, or earnest little boys — were not REALLY male, but generically human. But any female puppets would be viewed as deviant, or as having girl-specific traits. As a result, it took thirty-seven years after Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Elmo were created for the show’s producers to come up with Abby Cadabby, a high-spirited puppet with magical powers and a feminine aesthetic. Her distinctly female person was a sign that people were beginning to relax about gender…”
As Ms. Pinker shows (Pinker, the sister of Harvard heavyweight psychologist Steven Pinker, is hardly a traditionalist), people are relaxing about gender roles precisely because the overwhelming evidence reveals that men and women are very different — innately different.
No one is suggesting that men and women should not be treated equally under the law. But you are suggesting that men and women should be treated equally because they are equal in nature. I am suggesting that your view belittles and enslaves women. I am committed to the idea that women should be treated equally under the law, and men should be treated equally under the law, precisely because the very idea of “equality under the law” implies that both genders are NOT equal. It is because men and women ARE DIFFERENT that equality under the law is so tenuous. If men and women were essentially equal, as you’ve suggested, then equality under the law would be (nearly) meaningless. Why, for example, would women need the “right” to vote if they are no different than men? Wouldn’t a woman’s vote be identical to a man’s vote? According to you it would be. But my view is that a woman votes differently than a man; this is implied in giving a woman the right to vote. Hence, the law regards male and female as ESSENTIALLY different, and it is designed to protect those differences.
Seriously, if man and woman are identical (or nearly so), there is no reason a man cannot vote on “women’s issues” or discuss such issues with authority since, according to you, he and all women are interchangeable.
And yes, your post remains something very much rooted in the distant past. Sorry. (See? I’m the one apologizing.) And no, no one is suggesting (at least I am not) that “women are supposed to be servile and deferential to men,” as you put it. Have I intimated that? No, I haven’t. Again, sorry.
Even more bliss to you,
BG
If I could just throw something in…
(first of all, this is an interesting discussion)
I think it is an even more interesting question to consider how society values and should value masculinity and femininity instead of just men and women. The categories of “men” and “women” are false, misleading, and do not get to the core of anything substantial. Within those categories, there is such variation that the only meaningful application of those categories is biological (genitals). Even that line can be blurry.
Why is masculinity associated with power and dominance while femininity is associated with submission? Why is masculinity associated with rationality while femininity is associated with emotion? The list goes on. My ultimate questions about all of these things are these:
1) Is one set inherently superior (not just dominating), or is it society that has traditionally seen one set as superior?
2) Is it possible for there to be cross-over? If something feminine becomes dominating, for example, does it lose is femininity?
3) What is the ultimate goal? Is it achieving the ideals of the gender or is it something concrete like power or wealth?
Bill, you go down a very silly line of reasoning that starts with your whole “differences between the sexes” argument. Especially at the end when you talk about men voting on behalf of women.
Dear Mr. Manes,
I appreciate your input. I really do.
It would be really interesting if you could explain to me how what I’ve pursued is “silly.” If men and women are essentially identical, why is it imperative that women vote? Is it merely because we seek a just society, with justice being nothing more than that no one feels left out? Is participation — or the prevention of disenfranchisement — the only goal of women’s suffrage? Or is there an underlying belief, nay, is there an overt belief that women have different perspectives not just as people, but as women? And if that’s the case, doesn’t the fact that women WANT to vote and enter politics in order to ensure that their voice is heard — it being different than a man’s — prove that men and women are different, even essentially so?
I can toss this line of questioning out the door if you find it feckless. Forget voting rights, or other legal rights designed to give women equality — to men. Let’s just talk about interchangeability. If men and women are identical, then it follows that a male president is identical to a female one. This is pretty simple math. No doubt when we speak in this way we compartmentalize people, reducing them to so many convenient qualities; it is obvious to many Americans that two male presidents can be VERY different from each other. But I wonder how many people believe that two male presidents differ from each other when it comes to actually understanding women’s social, economic and political needs. Far fewer, I bet. But if we accept that two male presidents ARE VERY different from each other, INNATELY different, then does it not follow that we are all innately different from each other and that gender differences make us even more so? (By the way, does anyone dare say that Barack Obama and George W. Bush are not ESSENTIALLY but only accidentally different, both merely examples of different conditioning outcomes?)
Even the most superficial understanding of biology shows that men and women are innately and wildly different. We are all, to some degree, victims of social engineers who abhor nature, science, biology: for decades educational and socializing models have been erected AGAINST biology. In many ways, liberals/progressives HATE nature, meaning that they reject it for outcomes that are not natural. Equality is not found in nature, and yet we not only pretend it exists we try to create it where it cannot exist. I am not referring to equal treatment under the law, for that is a decision rooted in the social contract. I am referring to the idea that informs part if not most of this discussion: that men and women are intrinsically equal in abilities, attitudes, desires, proclivities. The science clearly shows otherwise. Neither sex is inferior or superior. To suggest one is better or superior is a value judgment not itself born of science (or exemplified by nature). Both are in many ways simply and radically DIFFERENT. To our peril we have pretended they are not; to our peril, we’ve been raising children according to a model that conforms to an agenda and not to biology. Alienation abounds, I am afraid, and we have exacerbated it.
Sorry to reply so late. It’s far too early in the morning to be engaged this way. I’ve been awakened by illness, so I am distracting myself from unpleasantness.
Peace and mirth,
BG
Well then I should wish you health instead of peace or mirth Bill.
I’ll weigh in on a couple of things. As to your point that if women and men are totally interchangeable, why does it matter that there’s a female president? Well why does it matter that there’s a male? You should understand that I come at this partially from my profession, as a statistician. When you look at any number of historical totes . . female participation in the government, female participation in most white collar professions, hell, female participation in color commentary in sports . . they just aren’t there. So the question becomes why. It’s disingenuous to suggest it’s because they are fundamentally or ESSENTIALLY as you put it different from men. I know two or three women who would make great presidents or CEOs and I’ve probably met one in my life who would make a great baseball announcer, but I don’t think they aren’t in those jobs entirely because they got shy and didn’t pursue them or needed to have some babies. I think that there are still plenty of workplaces where the mere idea that a woman would fill job X is unheard of, the White House being one of them.
I have problems with arguments that women and men are fundamentally different, in general, because it’s the flip side of the ‘why women wear burqas’ argument. Women who defend the burqa say that it makes them feel safer, feel taken care of. Bullshit. You wouldn’t need to feel safer, feel taken care of, if the guys around you didn’t feel daily permission to treat you like an object. It goes with the Southern US business of treating a lady like a little flower who might blow away with the wind–you are patronizing that lady. You are making her less of a person. Because if she’s less of a person then you don’t really need to afford her all the opportunities and rights she’s entitled to.
Truth is, every new generation of men I encounter reinforces this fact, because 30 year old men today (and again like all my arguments, I’m grossly generalizing) are light years different from 30 year old men even 20 years ago. I hear 30 year old men today talk about their feelings–wouldn’t have happened among the Greatest Generation. I watch 30 year old men today take daily care of their children–when Kramer vs. Kramer came out in 1979 or whenever, this was completely unheard of. The reason why? Successive generations of mothers who worked outside the home raised those men. They see their own parents as more equal than men in generations before them and their own behavior is less stereotypically gender-bound. It’s a good thing.
David, to me the ultimate goal is not power or money but I cast things in that light frequently because I’m also a Maslovian. Women can’t work on self-empowerment if they’re hungry. And I think Edith Wharton is still alive and well today.
As for the victimization thing, maybe I am going too far in that direction, but I do think that anybody on the bottom of an exploitative relationship tends to see themselves that way, and some are better than others at getting past it. But always remember, it takes two to create a victim.
Forgive me for also intruding on this, but I would also like to weigh in a bit.
Bill,
I agree with you that men and women are essentially different. Men cannot give birth. Women cannot provide the semen that makes that birth possible. That’s extremely basic, but even I as a feminist agree that there are many different ways in which men and women as well as masculinity and femininity are not equal, and I agree with David that masculinity and femininity should be the focus of this in conversation, not men and women.
However, your argument that if they are essentially identical, it would make no difference if a women were president, does not make sense to me. It feels to me that you’re saying if there were two identical twins, and one twin was showered with presents and encouraged to succeed, reach for the sky, etc., whilst the other was largely ignored and shunted off to the side, it would still be much the same in the end. Even if man and woman were virtually the same, it would not be right to place woman in the inferior position, because as equals they deserve the same amount of respect and opportunity.
Neffs,
I think you are focusing too much on the inferiority of women and casting aside all the things that make the differences between women and men beautiful (or rather, masculinity and femininity). Yes, I know women have been pushed down and trampled throughout all society; I just did a presentation on the history of feminism that allowed me to see the movement in a whole new light.
Plato argued that though men and women were different in a lot of ways, their differences should be seen as complementary, and I agree with this. The traits of masculinity and femininity should be equally respected without being cast in the same mold. Perhaps I am just another woman who fits into your burka mentality, but I don’t think so. I have been victimized in the past, but even then it wasn’t because I thought I needed someone to take care of me, it was because I refused to take care of myself. Now, don’t misunderstand me by thinking I imply that women throughout history have not tried to take a stand. We all know better than that.
Saying that masculinity and femininity are fundamentally different isn’t a bad thing. It’s just that we should embrace those differences and still place the characteristics as equal within our society. Unfortunately, I don’t know if that day will ever come.
Even the most superficial understanding of biology shows that men and women are innately and wildly different.
No it doesn’t. You’re just making things up.
Heather, I’m just confused by one thing in your comment–when you say I’m focusing too much on women’s inferiority, are you saying that I’m painting them as inferior and what’s happened to them is OK, or do you really mean subjugation (as explained really well by j_ball way up there)? Because if it’s the first, I really didn’t mean that.
I think what I’m suggesting is that while masculinity and femininity are interesting to talk about, maybe they are also burqas, and they’re the dressed up version of the stereotypical gender roles we’re intended to take.
The second. :) It makes more sense now.
Dear JH,
Actually, the only thing that has been made up is the idea that I’ve fabricated a thing.
BG
Ooo, snap, got me there.
Bill,
I didn’t mean to be overly dismissive last night. It just struck me as silly, and I really thought that as you re-read it you would think so too. I know it may not be core to your position or the discussion in general, but here is what I mean:
You ask, “If men and women are essentially identical, why is it imperative that women vote?”
I can understand where you are coming from, but you must be coming from a political paradigm that begins with no innate rights. In that world, hypothetical groups could be denied certain
rightsprivileges and the burden rests on them to show how they are separate, special, and deserving.My paradigm, on the other hand, along with this country’s in general, begins with every individual having equal rights. The burden is on the rest of society via the government to show that a certain group is separate, special, and undeserving.
That is why women’s suffrage makes sense to me and why your argument doesn’t really. Again, I didn’t mean to dismiss too easily if you think it is a good line of reasoning.
–
Back to what I perceive to be the actual core of your position. You assert that “[e]ven the most superficial understanding of biology shows that men and women are innately and wildly different.” I agree with several extremely important qualifiers. I would say “men and women tend to be different on average.” Qualifiers:
1) Superficial biological understanding is exactly the problem. Most people are not actually biologists, and to them, the obvious visible biological differences are enough to set hard lines that carry over into other aspects of society.
2) Biology plays a role, but is not even close to being the sole determinant of the differences between the genders. Anthropologists who study matriarchal societies would probably argue that society creates many of those differences. The word “innate” that you use is at least partially an overstatement.
3) There is nothing wild about the differences between men and women in the cosmic scheme of things. I recognize dramatic rhetoric, but this is just misleading. There are observable trends that can be correlated with gender, but there are more than enough individuals who don’t fit stereotypical molds to shut down any sweeping statements about wild differences. These crossovers (individuals with traits or tendencies that don’t match the expected traits or tendencies of their gender) bring us back to one of my original points…
–
The issue is not gender in the biological, dichotomous sense. It is far more interesting to look at masculinity and femininity in the abstract and how society interacts with those ideals.
Talking about men and women can only go so far because of all of the critiques that can be leveled against even that categorization. It is also much less interesting than the other abstract talk.
Dear Everybody,
I am more than willing to continue this conversation to its depths, but I may have to opt out. I find myself incredulous at some of the statements made here; I really do feel like I am talking to a bygone age and not the one in which I actually find myself.
Permit me to at least make a suggestion I find really interesting. It would be awesome if we could all take a break from this conversation for a few weeks. Before we return, perhaps we could all read ALL of Susan Pinker’s compelling work, The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, And The Real Gender Gap. I believe we will not only all be better informed, we will enjoy this conversation more completely. Wouldn’t it be cool to have a discussion forum on a very worthy book? Or don’t you think the book worthy? Please, read the review blurbs on this page to get a sense of why this would be a worthy book to discuss in light of what Neffs has written here.
Lastly, I personally think part of the problem here is a latent creationism. What do I mean? I mean that if we begin with a creationist model, there is a tendency to think that God created men and women nearly identically, with the sex characteristics unique to each sex bearing only superficial influence on differences. However, since I believe that we are beings who have evolved (though I am a devout theist), I believe that differences are largely a function of evolution, even stark differences — especially between the sexes.
Most of us have been influenced by the psychological and educational models that assume men and women are not all that different. Just one (among the many) of the compelling things that Pinker explores is what the MRI has shown (this technology is all rather new) regarding how men and women/boys and girls use their brains while performing certain tasks. Alas, the imaging shows men and women — at least most men and most women — use their brains VERY differently in a variety of situations. Neither use of the brain is better or of more value than the other; I am not making value judgments here. But in just this one insight — again, among MANY — drawn from new technology men and women are shown to be VERY different. Even the architecture of the female brain differs from the male (and vice versa, of course). Why would anyone here doubt this?
So, since we are indeed animals who have evolved, when I say our sexual differences are “wild,” I mean that in the best possible sense: we are wild animals and evolution has ensured that the sexes are wildly different. And when I say that the sexes are VERY different, well, I say that because they are (and gloriously and fantastically different). Yes, of course. If we were to whittle everything done to genetics we could note that male DNA is like female DNA. But we would also have to note that the DNA of mice is nearly identical to humans’, and yet no one here is going to suggest that mice and humans are essentially identical or that our differences are merely perceived, the result of conditioning.
Here is a question no one has answered: Who conditioned the conditioners? How is it that women were “subjugated” initially if sex differences are merely superficial, solely perceptual, and almost entirely the result of conditioning and reinforcement? If it is all only illusory, then there MUST be an explanation for that illusion that is NOT based in conditioning, reinforcement or mere perception.
But back to what I’ve stated above. I think that until we all get on the same page insofar as what biology and the neuro-sciences are telling us about the male and female brains (and behaviors), we are really caught in the chaos of Babel.
Peace,
BG
Ugh, I had a feeling The Sexual Paradox might have been behind this. I wouldn’t give that book too much credence if I were you, Bill. It’s a bit of a joke in neurocognitive circles. The studies she cites often have serious methodological problems, or have not been able to be replicated. Anything that uses brain imaging techniques tends to be believed, though, no matter how poorly designed the study. As a brain imager myself, I’m all too aware of this.
The tentative consensus on these matters among cognitive psychologists and neurologists is that men and women are largely the same. There are differences to be sure, but they’re miniscule and unimportant compared to the similarities.
Neffs writes:
“As for your last bit Random Poster, that’s the first time anybody has really talked about the core of my argument, so congrats on that. If it completely and totally ignores reality, then you go through your family and friends and tote up how much the women make and how much the men make–and don’t count spouses’ incomes as income. As long as that imbalance exists, then women have to put out sexually to be supported. That is the hard cold fact. I’m not talking about the leading edge of women and men–equality has come a long way among them. I’m talking about your cousin with the minimum wage job who has to rely on her really kind of crappy husband who has the slightly better manufacturing job. I’m talking about those poor women in Afghanistan who have to endure marital rape. I’m saying that we cluck and shame about those women but there are women here in the United States whose lot isn’t a whole lot better, and institutions including the church of Christ are complicit in their suffering. This is one of those problems that won’t be fixed until it’s fixed for everybody.”
I personally do not know any woman who, working at the same job and having the same experience and educational level as a man, earns less than a man. I simply do not. I never have, actually, whether in the context of a minimum wage job at a local store to working at an top 100 law firm.
The key, of course, is “same job,” “same experience . . . level,” and “same . . . educational level.” Items that your own post appears to gloss over (i.e., the cousin with a minimum wage job who relies on her husband who has a manufacturing job.)
If you want to make the women-get-paid less argument, and apparently you do, then you have to compare like for like. But you don’t, seemingly preferring instead to rely on the old unproven standbys about how women are working minimum wage jobs while their “crappy husband” upon whom they must rely earns more at a manufacturing plant. (And, as an aside, do you not believe that it is possible that some men rely on their wife for economic support?).
If a woman believes that her “minimum wage” job is insufficient to provide for her needs, then—at the very least—I believe that she should get a better education, not “rely” upon some male for her future. That being said, I suspect that there are plenty of women (including those for whom that you are allegedly concerned) who would prefer to take the “easy” way out and rely upon their diminishing beauty and sexual skills instead of actually trying to better their educational abilities and enhance their future income earnings. But certainly, no one is denying such women the right to choose what they wish to do with their life, is there?
Furthermore, your statement “[a]s long as that imbalance exists, then women have to put out sexually to be supported” is ridiculous. Plenty of women live just fine (and support themselves quite well) without having to “put out sexually.” That you apparently wish to demean the abilities and efforts of such women is breathtakingly telling.
Quite honestly, your statement is patronizing towards women, suggesting that they “have to rely” on men to survive. I think that mindset is totally false and incorrect.
Lastly, your comment that “there are women here in the United States whose lot isn’t a whole lot better, and institutions including the church of Christ are complicit in their suffering. This is one of those problems that won’t be fixed until it’s fixed for everybody” would be eye-rolling laughable if I didn’t think that you actually believed it.
First, I rather doubt that “the church of Christ” is complicit in women’s suffering, but that is really not at all relevant to your post (query why you even mentioned it). Second, and more on point, if you truly believe that this is an issue that needs “fixing,” then go out and fix it. I rather doubt that the women who you profess to care about have the time to read your blog postings on the matter.
So what are you waiting for? Surely you don’t need a man to help you, do you?
Dear JH,
I am disappointed that you would reveal that you’ve not been paying attention to this thread. I mentioned Ms. Pinker’s book in my very first comment; and I mentioned it later, even quoting it at length.
So you are going to dismiss Ms. Pinker’s book solely because there is some question about imaging? This implies that you believe imaging is the SOLE BASIS of her book. Clearly you have not read the book. Hence, your opinions appear unfounded (are you “making things up?”).
Of the 300 (or so) academic sources listed in Ms. Pinker’s bibliography, please tell me which ones YOU have found wanting. I can tell you which studies I found unconvincing, but I am not one of those types who dismiss 300 things because of problems with a few things. Maybe you could also link us to some of your own writings — peer reviewed, of course — on the problem with drawing inferences from imaging and other cognitive studies. (And it’s interesting that a quick Internet search does not support your claim that Ms. Pinker’s relatively new book is a “joke in neurocognitive circles.” Please, pass along your sources. Also, I note in passing that The New Statesman reviewer of Pinker’s book could not have read Ms. Pinker very carefully at all.)
It’s amazing to me that I have landed on a rather small conversation which includes one expert on neuroscience and brain imaging and another expert in statistics. This lowly layman is clearly outmatched.
Peace and mirth!
BG
I generally don’t read your comments because they’re pedantic and long-winded. So I’ll cop to not reading everything in the whole thread.
I hang out with psychologists and brain imagers all day. It’s what I do. So I get my ideas about what the consensus is from that, along with my observation from reading studies that gender differences seem not to play much of a role in most things, and when they do, it’s generally impossible to tell what is the result of biology and what is the result of of experience. The usual response from cognitive scientists when they see a magazine article or popular level book about mental sex differences is to roll their eyes and sigh. The claims are almost always overblown.
Even if I had the time, I wouldn’t entertain your harranguing about sources, because it’s a cheap rhetorical trick. Do you really want to spend weeks wading through scientific studies, sorting out experimental and statistical methods? You seem to imply that you don’t have the necessary background to understand any of that anyway. So what good would it do? You’re really getting tiresome here.
David, what was it you wanted to talk about re masculinity and femininity?
I’ll start with one. I find the tendency to try to shoot down an argument by micro-hashing sentences taken out of context and tiny little points of conflict to be a distinctly masculine one.
JH,
Talk about pedantic! Skimming, as you’ve done, and then pontificating without proper comprehension, is nearly the epitome of pedantry. (What a curious confession you make: you find my comments pedantic and verbose and that is why you don’t read them. If you don’t read them, how do you know they are verbose and pedantic?)
So, in the midst of a rather serious discussion about sex differences, you reveal that your case is entirely anecdotal: You “hang out” with psychologists and so get your “ideas what the consensus is from that.” Compelling stuff! And then you announce that “it’s generally impossible to tell what is the result of biology and what is the result of of experience.” Thanks a lot. Surely you see that you’ve stopped the conversation by declaring that science — and the apparent consensus you so keenly observe — cannot tell us whether sex differences are physical or merely perceptual.
Since you have NOT read Susan Pinker’s book, and since you apparently do not know that she is a psychologist (and her brother is no slouch, either) clearly committed to excellence in her work, you do not know whether Ms. Pinker’s “claims are overblown,” nor do you know what those claims even are.
JH, you know what is a “cheap rhetorical trick,” as you put it? First, let me state what is NOT a trick: me asking you for some — ANY — evidence that you are qualified to speak so dismissively about something you have not read. What is not a trick is me asking you to direct us to those critics who have rolled their eyes at Ms. Pinker’s remarkable work.
But here’s a real rhetorical trick: YOU throwing bombs and then running away from actually justifying yourself. Apparently there are just too many papers and studies for you to find even two to prove your case; and there are too many for me to pore over or even understand. I am just too stupid, and you too learned, for you to bother with me. Of course, what is there to understand when you’ve just told us that all of these studies — the MASSES of studies you’ve apparently mastered — fall short, since it is “generally impossible” (your words) to determine whether sex differences are innate or learned?
Call it the old runaway ploy. That trick is pathetic, cheap and, ironically, typical of many pedants.
(It is interesting that your first comment in this thread was directed at my assertion that “Even the most superficial understanding of biology shows that men and women are innately and wildly different.” What was your reply? “No it doesn’t. You’re just making things up.” And then you declare that it is impossible to determine the origins of sex differences. Bewilderment everywhere!)
Conversation-stopping. It’s a bit like Bible-thumping.
BG
Bill, you just said absolutely nothing.
Well, I’d say Susan Pinker is more columnist and commentator than psychologist. From what I can tell, her academic work seems to be focused on sociological issues pertaining to the practice of medicine in Canada, which is pretty different from cognitive psychology. Her brother (whom I actually had sushi with last summer, along with about 15 other academics – look at me namedropping!) is the only proper psychologist out of the pair.
As Neffs said, there’s a lot of hot air here to deal with in your comment, really. And I’m not going to further waste my time with it. Suffice it to say that you initially said that science is telling us that men and women are wildly, innately different, and this is certainly not true. If anything, the consensus is in the other direction, though I wouldn’t be dogmatic about that either, personally. You overplayed your hand, I called you on it, then you went apeshit.
Neffs,
What you’ve written is demonstrably false … and silly. (Besides, if I’ve said nothing, why do my vaporous words prompt a fallacious reply from JH, who agrees with you?)
BG
JH,
I have not overplayed my hand at all; you have called me on nothing. You are guilty of projection. If you think you have demonstrated yourself in any intellectually honorable way here, then I grieve for the state of thought in this world.
If anything, you have overplayed your hand and I called YOU on it. You have run away (again); you’ve made no attempt whatsoever to justify either your assertions or your credentials. (Your feeble attempt at associating yourself with “consensus” in mere anecdotal terms notwithstanding.)
Again, you’ve told us that it is impossible for us to know the genesis of sex differences, and yet you return to this dismal “consensus” trope. Do you even understand how science advances? (See my essay on Twain, Kuhn, and Consensus here)
So, now. Let’s see where we are. You’ve declared yourself — without evidence — something of an expert on MR imaging and neuroscience. Moreover, you have posited these alleged bona fides so that I might defer to your expertise in these and related matters; that I should just “submit” in an “I’m-wrong-you’re-right!” act of genuflection. And now you suggest that you are personal chums with Steven Pinker, that you’ve had LUNCH with him. What, did he happen to be eating in your dining commons the day he visited your campus? Egads, JH, this is rich!
BG
Oh you’re that guy.
What, no peace and mirth this time? I want my money back.
Yeah but you got an ‘egads’–something says that he maybe actually says that in public.
But don’t take my word for it!
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/05/the_tragic_fail.php
Neffs/JH,
Please, I am begging you. Stop overwhelming me with the rigor of your intellection, the sheer force of your polemics. The rejoinders are all so heady, so withering. What shall I do?
And Neffs, thanks for finally pulling out an authoritative source — a blog in the Village Voice — to bolster your claims. (As I said in my first comment, this is all a bit like stepping back into the ancient past.)
Blissfully attentive,
BG
Perhaps I have been a bit dismissive. These are comlex issues that deserve a fair, erudite discussion. Unfortunately I’m really busy with life right now and just don’t have the time, so as an admittedly poor substitute, I recommend this really good panel discussion they had at Yale recently on the science of gender and innateness, with equal time for different perspectives.
Dear JH,
Thank you for the honest reply. Yes, you have been dismissive, even unnecessarily so. I am not here as an antagonist; I’ve committed no ad hominem fallacies. I am interested in discussing this matter plainly, though not in any intellectually passive sense: I actively want to be engaged in dialogue.
Neffs, too, has been dismissive and even petty (sorry), choosing to see me as some sort of annoyance rather than as an interlocutor seeking clarity, understanding and depth of insight. Of course, I am not hurt by any of this, only discouraged; disappointed.
Be well this day,
BG
I haven’t read all the comments, so this may have been addressed. But I don’t believe Christianity should be included in – “All of the world’s major religions, with the possible exception of Buddhism, teach that women are to have less standing than men. All of them teach that women are to physically, economically and socially submit to men.” Consider that this has been the misinterpretation of Scripture to subordinate women, but not the intention. Men and women could qualify as deacons according to the original Greek. There are frequent mentions in the NT of women who contributed in important ways. Not to mention that the teachings of Jesus, and Paul’s letters are inconsistent with the premise that women should have less standing in society. The fact that Christian denominations, especially the churches of Christ, do not accurately address the function and role of women in the early church is a reflection of their bias, not Christ’s message. For the record, I’m a stay at home mom, and I believe it’s the most important job I could ever and will ever have.
Karen, I am sympathetic to your point. I agree with your Christian feminism position probably even more than you do. But I think you are mistaken when you assert that such beliefs can be legitimately found in the original intent of the Bible.
The ancient world was deeply sexist, and our modern society is only beginning to move beyond that. The authors of the Bible lived in a time where social/economic/legal equality between the genders was simply an unthinkable thought. It wasn’t even under consideration.
Your argument stems from the false premise that only Biblical interpretations that are consistent with the original intent are valid. This original intent obsession is bigger than just Biblical scholarship, but it is profoundly seen there.
On a broader note, the obsession with original intent with foundational documents of any sort is, I think, a detrimental thing. Instead of chaining ourselves to the original beliefs and philosophies represented in any particular document, we should allow for progress and evolution in thought. The marketplace of ideas generally makes for progress over time, and may sometimes make the original intent obsolete. The original principles may live on and may even be expanded by future interpretations and applications.
The best example that I use is this. We often use the phrase “all men are created equal” in modern discussions because it has a sense of authority. This phrase is applied to everything from civil rights to women’s rights to gay rights. However, when Thomas Jefferson penned these words as part of the Declaration of Independence, there is no way he intended “all men” to apply to blacks, women, or gays. That doesn’t make the use of the phrase invalid today, though, because it is okay to expand upon that original principle and apply it to modern issues keeping in mind the social, moral, and philosophical progress we have made. Progress is a good thing, not something to be afraid of.
Imagine how terrible our country would be if we never moved beyond the original cultural context of “all men are created equal.” The same is true for many parts of the Bible. It is terrible to see churches that are paralyzed from making progress because of their obsession with original intent.
David – The ancient world was deeply sexist, racist and discriminatory, but not Christ. Our contemporary world is still discriminatory, but not Christ. I believe Christianity was and is radical, because the “good news” of Jesus was the desire to make us all “one” – all part of the body of Christ. No Greek, or Jew, slave or free. Christ is all and in all. There is no place for subordination within the body. Each of us has a vital role – a point Paul consistently attempts to convey. The meaning of the gospel, as I see it, is the most evolved, most progressive concept ever to enter the world. It cannot be “improved” upon. How can you improve on love, hope and joy? How can you improve upon the knowledge that you are part and participating in the body of Christ? I think it’s a weak example to use Jefferson, since his motivations were not the same as the Savior’s; his vision considerably dim, compared to the omniscience of God. Let me put it you in better words than I have. My dad, who incidentally was and is an admirer of Jimmy Allen, explained the gospel to me this way…
““Gospel” is a term that very few people understand. While it is “good news” and “good news about Jesus,” the question is what is the content of the good news? According to the book of Ephesians God has had an eternal, undefeatable plan to make all people “one” (holy like him). He “elected/chose/predestined” us for this end (not to be ‘saved’ but to be ‘holy.’) It is because we messed up that in his plan he made the necessary corrections by redeeming us in Christ. The plan has been achieved in principle by Christ. This occurs in the invisible sphere (“heavenlies” is the term used in Ephesians). It is now to be put into practice by the redeemed (everyone is included, although not all know they have been forgiven and even some who do know it do not practice it) in the visible sphere. This proclamation of what God has done through Christ (ordaining, redeeming, sealing) is the “good news.” Whenever and wherever one conforms to the plan to be holy, that is, puts into the practice the plan—-this is the body of Christ, the church, whether the dorm room, the street corner or the dinner table. Any act that does not contribute to the process of making all of us “one” is a denial of the gospel—whether it is marginalizing others because they do not conform to our likes and dislikes, gossiping, bad-mouthing, cheating, lying etc.”
So, our call to baptism is to immerse ourselves in this knowledge and respond to it by fulfilling Christ’s plan to live holy lives – reach out to the “least of these,” respond in love instead of hate, hate evil and cling to good. I believe Christ was baptized to demonstrate his knowledge that he was the Son of God, and God confirmed it. Jesus then went and showed us how to live a holy life. In the times when we choose against holiness, this is what impedes our progress, not original intent. One of the countless obstacles is the distortion of the original intent that has haunted Christianity for centuries. The others are as numerous as His children, but He died for each of us. For everything. His grace is greater than all our sins.
David said, “Your argument stems from the false premise that only Biblical interpretations that are consistent with the original intent are valid.”
David, should I interpret your statement above with your original intent or can I say it means whatever I want it to mean?
@Bugsy, you can’t help but add your own meaning. If people are still reading my ideas after centuries and expanding them and making them better, great. Doubtful, though. Besides that, don’t attack a straw-man version of my argument. The choices are either not strict loyalty to the original intent (which in unknowable anyway) or a complete free-for-all. Don’t be ridiculous.
@Karen, you can only see egalitarian Jesus if you try really hard and want to really badly. Maybe not even then, because I have tried hard and want to badly and he is still nowhere to be found. What did Jesus do or say, exactly, that makes you think he was not at all sexist, despite the entirety of the rest of the culture?
Your line about “no Greek, or Jew, slave or free” was not from Jesus, by the way. It was from a guy who said that he did not allow women to even speak in front of men. He opined another time that women were the “weaker vessel.” My favorite line from him was that “women are saved through childbearing.” Take that for original intent. Do you believe that you as a woman are saved through childbearing?
You got a little bit preachy there, too. :)
David – A bit preachy? That’s a first. I think a lot of your examples are best considered in the context and intent that they were written. You can characterize Christianity any way you want if you choose to take things out of context. Heaven knows its been tried before. If you believe that Jesus and Paul were just sexist men of their times that happened to say some insightful things, than I can’t change your mind. I’d have to do some research to address your questions, but I agree there are some difficult passages.
I think the question about childbearing does not literally mean you have to have kids to be saved. We are saved through grace, so we can’t earn it. Andreas Kostenberger has an interesting analysis of this text. Personally, I believe that it is a reminder for women of the important and vital role of child-rearing. Take my word for it, when you’re up to your elbows in dirty diapers or have told a toddler to “stop it” for the 50th time, its hard to feel like you’re doing anything worthwhile and productive. I think he was saying, “don’t let the world tell you raising a family isn’t important. Don’t get discouraged. Your ability to have children is God’s gift.”
I’m also aware that it was Paul who wrote Gal 3:28. The verse continues…”neither… male or female, for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus.” That doesn’t sound at all like a sexist statement to me. I don’t believe “weaker vessel” was an insult either.
“It was from a guy who said that he did not allow women to even speak in front of men” Here again I think you’re reading what you want to and not the conflict Paul was actually addressing. Some commentaries refer to a cultural conflict in Ephesus and Corinth where women who spoke publicly where considered shameful in Greek culture. There were no prohibitions on women speaking in non-Grecian churches. I believe this was an attempt to reconcile the progressive nature of Christianity with secular customs. I would take off my shoes before entering a home in Japan, even though that’s not a custom I practice in mine. I don’t know if Paul’s background inclined him to a bias towards women, but he commends Timothy’s mother and grandmother on their faith that they passed on to him. Again, that doesn’t sound sexist to praise women on their instruction of a minister so highly regarded by Paul.
More than anything he said, it was the actions of Jesus that convince me he wasn’t sexist – reaching out to women who were prostitutes. adulterers, diseased, and Gentile. A sexist Jewish man of his day would have nothing to do with these type of women.
It took me a lot of years to shake some of the falsehoods that I was taught while at Harding. But consider that you might be rejecting the misinterpretations of Scripture and not Scripture itself.
David said, “Besides that, don’t attack a straw-man version of my argument.”
So, as I look back on what you have said and realize that I should not start with the false premise that one should actually try to get to the intent of what an author meant, I am happy to see that you agree with me entirely.
Wow! This is so liberating to be able to use this method of interpretation. You are so dog-gone smart! Thanks for putting me onto this!
@Karen, the items you attempt to dismiss are not just cultural peculiarities. They are directly related to status. Your answer to the Jesus question was less direct than you thought it was. The examples you give – of Jesus not completely shunning women he encountered – might show that Jesus was not as sexist as the rest of his contemporary culture was. He never said or did anything, though, that directly indicated egalitarian or truly non-sexist feelings.
The most direct quotes from the Bible that deal with the issue of sexism/egalitarianism are all severely sexist.
One last thing. Even if you are right that Jesus, Paul, & Co. were completely non-sexist (in unbelievably stark contrast to the entire rest of the culture, making them and their message utterly irrelevant), the true intent of their message was “misunderstood” from the day it was written until, like, the 1960s. It is possible… but you are standing just on this side of a major shift in a paradigm of Biblical interpretation.
@Bugsy, do you have anything substantive to add? You keep trying to argue against the straw man, and I bet you win every time. Try reading what I wrote.
It is substantive and you know it, that’s why you keep throwing out your straw man argument. It is not a straw man argument, it is EXACTLY what you suggest with Biblical passages you don’t like. You throw out this idea that original intent is somehow an inferior approach in a pseudo-scholarly manner as if it has intellectual rigor behind it. In fact, it is a load of b.s. That kind of stupid idea won’t work with any kind of communication. Communication, when stripped of the originator’s intent becomes meaningless. However, the denial of original intent is a useful tool for those who are determined to ignore Biblical injunctions or Constitutional ones. It is the tool of choice by those who want to recreate the Constitution to say what they want it to say and by those who want to recreate God in their own image.
Once again, ignoring your original intent, thank you for agreeing with me. It is heartening to have one of your intellectual stature in my corner on this. I appreciate the fact that our views are in perfect harmony once I ignore your original intent. Maybe we can collaborate on a book
@Bugsy, do you understand what “straw man” means? Reading your response to my accusation is like watching Steven Colbert.
Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart — that is your main source of news, isn’t it?
Specifically, which parts of anything you have written should I ignore your original intent in order to better interpret what you are saying?
I’m out of town and on dialup (egads!) so I just have a couple trinkets to throw in.
Karen I actually agree with you about the radical-ness of Jesus. When you separate out the words of Jesus in the NT he is speaking from a less sexist, status-ist place than everybody else. But then I also believe that Jesus is kind of a self-referent personality test and people see the qualities in Jesus that they most value in themselves, and I’m fairly radical in some of my beliefs so I also think that it colors my view of Jesus.
Bugsy you are doing damage to the Bible when you insist on interpreting vis a vis original intent. Do you not believe in a Holy Spirit that’s capable of seeing past the strictures of a single time and place? Do you think that God can’t see into the future to know what should be written down for mankind throughout the span of history? Why are you forcing the shortsightedness of man on God?
Neffs said, Do you think that God can’t see into the future to know what should be written down for mankind throughout the span of history? Why are you forcing the shortsightedness of man on God?”
Neffs, do you come to such a conclusion about God based upon taking seriously the Biblical authors’ original intent about God’s power or did you arrive at it through some sort of self-revelation? Did you come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit actually exists by taking seriously the Biblical author’s original intent when they wrote about the Holy Spirit? It is not the idea of interpreting by original intent that does damage to Scripture.
The idea that somehow one contains some sort of special knowledge or degree of intellectual sophistication that allows one to make a correct interpretation by ignoring original intent of the author is nothing but sophistry.
@Bugsy, I thought you would have understood it earlier, but evidently you did not. Let me lay it out a little better (maybe I was unclear). I think that this is true for any text, including the Constitution and the Bible:
Any text contains a wealth of meaning. There is some meaning inherent within the original intent of whatever the author(s) envisioned when they authored it. That meaning may be somewhat (but never entirely) knowable to the reader. The original intent, at best, is as authoritative as the author.
The text also assumes a great deal of meaning as it is applied by the reader. No reader can perfectly understand the inherent meaning of any text. Any reader necessarily inserts his or her own perspective into a text during the process of reading.
The reader’s perspective is largely shaped by society. Social change and progress change the conditions in which the text is interpreted. No reader today can replicate the culture in which a historical text was originally created.
This change in meaning is not always a bad thing. In fact, adding to the original intent can be a positive thing in many ways. The first way is by making the text relevant. A text is more valuable when it connects with the modern reader rather than just remaining stagnant in its own time period (which is impossible anyway). The second and bigger way is by expanding and improving on the ideas contained within the text.
I know you and many others are immediately resistant to the idea that the Bible’s ideas could be expanded or improved upon. I find that baffling. The Bible was written by individuals who lived in periods of history where certain things were commonly accepted that are now seen as disgracefully immoral: slavery, genocide, child marriage, subjugation of women, forced marriages (or at least marriages without any regard for the woman’s wishes), homophobia, and others. As far as society goes, thank goodness we have made the progress we have over the past centuries. The Bible is colored by those ancient cultural beliefs, and even contains endorsements of many of them. We would be foolish to futilely try to hold on to the simple theology and morality of the ancient world and reject the moral progress that our civilization has seen over the past millennia.
Not only is it permissible to insert expanded or updated meaning into the principles espoused in the Bible, it is necessary. Biblical principles – chiefly love, self-sacrifice, charity, and kindness – are timeless. They have not gone out of style after thousands of years, and they will never. The ways that those principles are applied, however, do change quite a bit with changes in culture and technology.
The only way for the Bible to remain relevant is for its principles to rise above its particulars. People like you who obsess over the original intent chain Christianity down to an ancient and primitive understanding of morality and you threaten to strangle Christianity and its relevance in the modern world.
This expansion and reapplication of Christian principles does not mean completely throwing them out and making up anything that the modern person wishes (as you seemed to think the only alternative is). It is about remaining true to the principles of Christianity while also refining their application for a changing world.
David said, “Any text contains a wealth of meaning.”
Actually, this is not true as I can show from your statement above. To say any text contains a wealth of meaning would exclude the idea that you were saying any text contains no meaning. While there might be multiple meanings, that does not mean any text can mean anything. Essentially, you haven’t said anything with your statement above.
David said, “There is some meaning inherent within the original intent of whatever the author(s) envisioned when they authored it. That meaning may be somewhat (but never entirely) knowable to the reader.”
Okay, we may not know the original intent. So what? That only means that we may not know what was meant by the text. Again, you have said nothing.
David said, “Any reader necessarily inserts his or her own perspective into a text during the process of reading. The reader’s perspective is largely shaped by society.”
Now you are revealing where you are really coming from. This part above is exactly correct. For instance, when you say the Bible has “homophobia” in it because it says homosexuality is immoral, you have become the perfect example of one who’s perspective is shaped by society and you are inserting your own perspective into the text. And, if the text is too troublesome, you simply dispense with original intent.
David said, “The only way for the Bible to remain relevant is for its principles to rise above its particulars. People like you who obsess over the original intent chain Christianity down to an ancient and primitive understanding of morality and you threaten to strangle Christianity and its relevance in the modern world.”
Sorry, but this is about as ignorant a statement that can be made. To imply Scripture stays relevant only when we ignore its particulars (or at least the particulars we do not like) is to render it totally irrelevant. Scripture is the sum of its particulars. Of course what you really mean is to dispense with those particulars we find troublesome to our enlightened intellects. Hence, your charges of homophobia, your desire to somehow make Christianity “relevant” while denying the divinity of Christ (in an earlier post), and your description of its authors as “primitive.” You filter out anything in Scripture that does not fit your worldview and then act as though you are the one with the wisdom to properly interpret it. As I said before, the idea that somehow one contains some sort of special knowledge or degree of intellectual sophistication that allows one to make a correct interpretation by ignoring original intent of the author is nothing but sophistry.
David, I find you are struggling to straddle two worlds here. You still have one foot partially in the Christian camp (thus your implied desire to keep Christianity relevant) and one foot in a totally secular camp that embraces and gives validation to your politics (which seem incredibly important to you). Pick one. The Bible is either authoritative or it is not. If it is not, it is simply another piece of ancient folklore. In that case, it doesn’t need to be made relevant. If it is the opposite of that however, it is not our culture and our self-confident wisdom that need to transform Scripture to keep it relevant, it is Scripture that needs to transform our culture and our lives.
@Bugsy, your first comments are utterly incoherent, so I don’t even know what to say to them.
On the perspective issue, I admitted that I insert my own perspective, influenced by society, when I read a text like the Bible. Everybody does, though, so that doesn’t make me special. It just makes you delusional if you think that you do not.
On Biblical relevance, you could not be more incorrect. You think “scripture is the sum of its particulars,” and that is a tragic way of viewing Christianity. If that were true, it never would have survived like it did. The Bible is full of things that do not apply to the modern world at all – all sorts of agrarian metaphors, relations with a foreign occupying power, etc. It fails completely to address most of the modern issues with its particulars – abortion, stem cells, doctor assisted suicide, the death penalty, and torture. If Christianity is limited by the particulars of the Bible as you say, then it is already irrelevant.
Luckily, I have a higher view of Christianity than that. I think that its principles are bigger than just the way they were applied to the ancient Roman world two thousand years ago, and that those principles can still speak to us today to provide guidance through different situations.
I don’t struggle to straddle two world at all; I am perfectly satisfied with my own beliefs, even though they might be more complex than the other, easily categorized people you know.
You are falsely dichotomizing again with your choice of the Bible being authoritative or completely useless. Of course it is not either, and stop pretending like complex issues are so simple. They deserve more thought than you are giving them.
I’ve only just gotten around to reading this thread.
First of all, I want to say that while I have never read Pinker’s book or seriously immersed myself in gender-related neurological studies (sounds interesting though), rhetoricaly speaking, Bill Gnade kicked butt at the opening of this thread. Nobody aknowledged it, they just sort of ran for the hills after a while, but he did. I wish we were still talking about some of the points he brought up instead of this…
“Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (NRSV)
How you can read passages like this and not see the sexist perspective of the author is incredible to me, but I’m open to any arguments to the contrary. Karen L’s initial interpretation of part of the above passage ignores the context of the passage and is obviously influenced by her personal experiences, and while I don’t think that the meaning she found is bad, if “original intent” is the goal here, then I would say that it is woefully innaccurate.
First of all, I want to say that while I have never read Pinker’s book or seriously immersed myself in gender-related neurological studies (sounds interesting though)
The link I provided in my last comment would be a good place to start, miniman.
http://www.slate.com/id/2217714/ specifically the last two paragraphs
Ross Douthat weighs in, makes a couple of good points, and also largely misses the point that I don’t think women really want to have other people be mistreated on their behalf:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/we-all-lose-our-charm-end
What do you guys make of this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-mapes/no-mercy_b_209529.html
Interesting article, even if it got a little overly dramatic at times.
I am a little more sympathetic to the anti-abortion crowd than the author evidently is. I think that, given their presuppositions, their actions seem more reasonable. I just wish more of them were willing to engage in a real philosophical/biological/legal discussion of the issue and put down their bumper sticker slogans and misinterpreted Bible verses.
And while I am also sympathetic to the late-term abortion parents described in the article, they are unrepresentative of parents who terminate pregnancies overall. Medical necessity is sometimes given as a primary reason for abortion, but it is hardly the norm. The whole late-term abortion thing is dicey.
Jimmy Carter in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/12/jimmy-carter-womens-rights-equality