The Essential Challenge: Does Theology Speak to Women’s Experience? (pp 19-24 Womanspirit Rising)
“The emancipation of women is finally impossible unless the Bible is understood from a feminist perspective and repudiated as revelation” (pg 19)
Well now. Uh, that’s a pretty tall order. I, personally, think that the bible is a lovely anthology of fairy tales used for the purpose of scaring people into specific behaviors. Ok, actually, I think it’s a really dull anthology of fairy tales created by weak-yet-wealthy men to scare everyone but themselves and their closest peers into submission. <phew – so glad to have THAT off my chest … >
So, word on the street is that in 1895, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote and edited The Woman’s Bible. It was ahead of its time, and was repudiated by feminists in 1896. It was revived sometime in the mid 20th century. I, however, have never read it. (As a general rule, BIBLE is a word that inspires me to turn away very quickly.)
At present, feminists hold that Theology is a product of male experience; and many women legitimately feel that something is wrong with the way Religion views them. Lesser. Sinning. Unclean. Carnal. Incapable.
Here’s the thing: an author mentioned in this section, Mary Daly, has asserted that the very concept of God being a Supreme Being (whether male or female) is a Patriarchal view in that it implies good vs bad … that it promotes dualism which, she says, is a complete construct of patriarchal mentality. I find this really interesting! I’m aware of dualism, and according to the spirituality I practice, it is dualism that traps us into our present reality – and that by being able to step outside of the dualistic world, we free ourselves to experience all-that-we-are in its most ecstatic form. I had never considered it, however, as a construct of patriarchy. I’m gonna have to give this some more consideration. Of course, my knee jerk reaction is to shout, “DAMN PATRIARCHY … NOT HERE … NOT HERE …!” But is it *really* a product of patriarchy, or just of human nature … or something else…
Hmmmmm.
My first reaction too was: "How is dualism a construct of patriarchy? Under what definition of patriarchy?"
ReplyDeleteIt feels like she's stretching.
Beerlady: I dunno. The book is really old - 33 years - maybe older than the Goddess herself. (Ha ha)
ReplyDeleteAs I'm not well versed in the subtleties of Patriarchy proper, I'm not inclined to completely dismiss her yet ~(Perhaps dualism IS a construct of Masculine Energy ... anyone have a comment on that??). However, if we grant her that premise, it sure makes for an interesting discussion, don't you think?
Reminds me of a favorite quote by D.T. Suzuki- "Man vs. God, God vs. Man. God vs. Nature, Nature vs. God. Very strange religion." D.T. Suzuki lecturing about Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say masculine energy is dualist by design but then defining anything creates duality by setting it apart in order to define it. Which is why I like zen metaphors when I don't need to be practical.
p.s. also wanted to recommend Christopher Hitchens book "God is NOT great: how religion poisons everthing." it's funny and might be a source for contemporary examples if you are writing research papers for your class.
That post was from Jon btw. It'd only allow posting as anonymous for some reason :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Jon - great comment! Thanks for the book reference also! I like your comment about zen metaphors and practicality (you rock!). That's something I have on my mind a lot. I, too, quite enjoy Eastern thought and I spend a lot of my energy in attempting to integrate it into all aspects of my daily life. Sometimes it works (and I always feel so accomplished when it does!) and sometimes it's *just * not * practical *. Maybe one day I'll master it.
ReplyDeleteThe eastern symbol of the Yin and the Yang is a representation of the dualism you seem to allude to. I don't consider myself to be an expert on eastern ideas, but from my study I have come to appreciate the symbol as an amalgamation of three intrinsically linked sub-symbols - the black (or blue), the white (or red), and the whole. The whole is what is typically ignored. One cannot diminish any of the former two without diminishing the other and the latter. That is, one cannot take away from the blue without removing some of the red, which leads to an overall diminution of the whole. The three symbols are linked, and together the red and the blue form the whole, perfect and eternal. Thus, there is no female without male, and no male without female. Together, we are whole and perfect; separate, we are diminished.
ReplyDeleteBilly Bob III -- I was reading the pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, today. He believed and taught not only that opposites are one and the same, (an example: a road going up is also a road going down) but also that the one is the many and the many are the one - that it's all indistinguishable. (An example of this is one's inability to step in the exact same river twice.)
ReplyDeleteYin and Yang are a *perfect* illustration of that very thing! Thanks!
I don't understand the connection between the conception of a Supreme Being and Patriarchy. Is it the inference of the Supreme Being's characteristics as ascribed; like the omni's? I can see how omnipotence could be viewed as stemming from some kind of patriarchal casting. But ontologically the concept of the Supreme Being is more of conception of what an actual infinite is. Like in Mathematics. Contemporary Christianity and people in general are who put a kind of patriarchal anthropomorphic spin on the concept of God. At least Philosophy of Religion presents otherwise. Which is what you were referring to?
ReplyDeleteCuster: I think Theology has little basis in rational thinking. (Ha ha). I'm talking about Theology as opposed to the Philosophy of Religion. They're two birds of a different feather - and I'm finding as I'm reading more that it's a pretty basic tenet of Theology that dualism, which mandates the idea of Supreme Being (and, consequently an Ultimate Evil Being)is considered a Patriarchal construct.
ReplyDeleteI have -unsuccessfully- asked to have it explained by my professor, and/but have also had the same claim pop up in two other pieces of work that I've read since but I still haven't pieced it all together yet in my brain so I can't explain it out...yet ... nor have I decided if I agree with it -feminist though I may be -
I just found it to be an interesting assertion which led my thinking down some uncharted corridors - and since this blog is about the way and places to which my mind meanders as I read/learn/experience new and interesting things, I decided to post a bit about my ruminations regarding it.