RE: Does the New Testament contain sexism?
October 12, 2014 at 12:14 am
(This post was last modified: October 12, 2014 at 12:15 am by Mudhammam.)
A few more thoughts I wrote on the topic today, and on that particular comment about "love" and "respect" (largely reiterating what's already been said):
The issue is only a matter of “positional distinctions” and their relation to “issues of person value” when positional distinction is taken to mean perpetual inequality in the treatment of persons on the basis of their sexual identity, in both their private and public life, as has been widely observed in the practice of so-called Christian morality, as in every other patriarchal framework. The very idea that, in the private and public spheres, a woman is commanded to be, “as the church is subject to Christ, subject in everything to their husbands,” (Eph. 5:24), “should keep silence in the churches... they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” (“If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”) (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the list goes on and on (1 Cor. 11:2-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Col. 3:18-22), is by definition patriarchal. In other words, women ought to be obedient and revere men at the expense of offending Christian sensibilities regarding the liberty to speak, learn or teach in public, and disregard the wisdom of any male “intrinsically appointed” as their parental-like authority. The justification for this patriarchal system that “since [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man,” is just as sexist and devaluing as it would be racist to declare, “since light-skinned persons are the image and glory of God; but dark-skinned persons are for the glory of the light-skinned.” In both cases, attempts at justification are as equally abyssal in their lack of cogency to the easily perceived meanings and implications of the statements at hand.
“A woman does need to especially feel loved; A man does especially need to feel respected.”
a) It's a sweeping generalization that purports to convey a fundamental human need as “especially” dominant in women, in juxtaposition to an equally fundamental human need that is alleged to “especially” apply to men. Of course, none of this is based in any actual data. All human beings have certain basic needs, and the statement is insignificant when one admits that its reversal is equally true when modified to meet the facts of reality, which a rational and humanistic ethics should strive to promote: “Human beings, male and female, equally need to feel loved and respected.” Improving Christian thought on male-female relationships is that simple.
b) It perpetuates the role of husband-parent-master that males had in the first and second centuries, as well as many afterward, that Christian writers allegedly attempted to repudiate. As a generalization, the statement is a lot more sensible about the prominence that love and respect might have in a healthy parental relationship: “A child does need to especially feel loved; an adult does especially need to feel respected” is arguably more true than its reversal, “an adult does need to especially feel loved; a child does especially need to feel respected.” It should be a bit troubling when one's supposedly innocent “positional distinctions” are both obviously racist when race is substituted for sex and ring far more true when child and adult is interchanged for women and men. Unlike some patriarchal societies, including first-century Rome, however, the positional distinction of women to men or a wife to her husband is no longer equivalent to the role of a child to his or her father. We have a revolution of secular rather than religiously inspired ethics to thank.
c) Ephesians 5:33, which is presumably the only real basis for placing special emphasis on the “love” women require versus the “respect” men need, offers an even more contemptible picture. There the writer specifically uses the Greek word for “respect” consistently used elsewhere to mean “to fear,” “be afraid,” “revere,” “obey.” At least, to the author of 1 Peter's credit, he uses the Greek word for “value” or “esteem” when he implores his readers to “treat with respect,” or pay “honor to the woman as the weaker sex” (3:7)
The issue is only a matter of “positional distinctions” and their relation to “issues of person value” when positional distinction is taken to mean perpetual inequality in the treatment of persons on the basis of their sexual identity, in both their private and public life, as has been widely observed in the practice of so-called Christian morality, as in every other patriarchal framework. The very idea that, in the private and public spheres, a woman is commanded to be, “as the church is subject to Christ, subject in everything to their husbands,” (Eph. 5:24), “should keep silence in the churches... they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” (“If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”) (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the list goes on and on (1 Cor. 11:2-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Col. 3:18-22), is by definition patriarchal. In other words, women ought to be obedient and revere men at the expense of offending Christian sensibilities regarding the liberty to speak, learn or teach in public, and disregard the wisdom of any male “intrinsically appointed” as their parental-like authority. The justification for this patriarchal system that “since [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man,” is just as sexist and devaluing as it would be racist to declare, “since light-skinned persons are the image and glory of God; but dark-skinned persons are for the glory of the light-skinned.” In both cases, attempts at justification are as equally abyssal in their lack of cogency to the easily perceived meanings and implications of the statements at hand.
“A woman does need to especially feel loved; A man does especially need to feel respected.”
a) It's a sweeping generalization that purports to convey a fundamental human need as “especially” dominant in women, in juxtaposition to an equally fundamental human need that is alleged to “especially” apply to men. Of course, none of this is based in any actual data. All human beings have certain basic needs, and the statement is insignificant when one admits that its reversal is equally true when modified to meet the facts of reality, which a rational and humanistic ethics should strive to promote: “Human beings, male and female, equally need to feel loved and respected.” Improving Christian thought on male-female relationships is that simple.
b) It perpetuates the role of husband-parent-master that males had in the first and second centuries, as well as many afterward, that Christian writers allegedly attempted to repudiate. As a generalization, the statement is a lot more sensible about the prominence that love and respect might have in a healthy parental relationship: “A child does need to especially feel loved; an adult does especially need to feel respected” is arguably more true than its reversal, “an adult does need to especially feel loved; a child does especially need to feel respected.” It should be a bit troubling when one's supposedly innocent “positional distinctions” are both obviously racist when race is substituted for sex and ring far more true when child and adult is interchanged for women and men. Unlike some patriarchal societies, including first-century Rome, however, the positional distinction of women to men or a wife to her husband is no longer equivalent to the role of a child to his or her father. We have a revolution of secular rather than religiously inspired ethics to thank.
c) Ephesians 5:33, which is presumably the only real basis for placing special emphasis on the “love” women require versus the “respect” men need, offers an even more contemptible picture. There the writer specifically uses the Greek word for “respect” consistently used elsewhere to mean “to fear,” “be afraid,” “revere,” “obey.” At least, to the author of 1 Peter's credit, he uses the Greek word for “value” or “esteem” when he implores his readers to “treat with respect,” or pay “honor to the woman as the weaker sex” (3:7)
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
