The Human Situation: A Feminine View (Valerie Saiving, pp 25-42 – Womanspirit Rising)
Oh My! This lady knows how to start an article right! “It is,” she begins, “a well known fact that theology has been written almost exclusively by men. This alone should put us on guard, especially since contemporary theologians constantly remind us that one of man’s strongest temptations is to identify his own limited perspective with universal truth.” Yowza! How do you like me now!?!?!
Theologians widely hold that the Human Condition is characterized by anxiety. Man’s individuality –aka his singular ability to choose his path in life combined with his essential loneliness as an individual - comes with a price: “A pervasive fear for the survival of itself and its values.” (pg 26) “Sin,” Saiving purports, “is the self’s attempt to overcome that anxiety by magnifying its own power, righteousness, or knowledge.” (pg 26). I would suppose it’s a tactic to be scarier than what is so scary – to convince himself (and hopefully those around him) that he IS the whole … not merely just a part of it . < insert note here: by “man” I mean “person”. My use of sexist pronouns is due to me wanting to keep my comments consistent with the way things are phrased in this article. I fully acknowledge that Women do, most certainly, do this too! >
Now. According to other myriad teachings I have enjoyed in the past, the opposite of fear is … wait for it … wait for it … can you guess it … Love. I’m not talking about the ooey gooey twitterpation felt at the onset of a new romance, nor the blasé observing-things-from-on-high love of an “enlightened soul”, nor of the fierce and *specialized* love a mother has for her children. I’m talking about “capital L” Love. I think of it as this nebulous source energy that permeates … and indeed is the source of … all things. Incidentally, I imagine it to be a pale sparkly yellow and to smell really good. The Pre-Socratic philosopher Thales identified this base substance as Water. Anaximenes figured it to be Air. In Early Modern times (you know, the 1600’s) Spinoza vaguely named it “the Infinite Substance”. None of those fellas seemed overly concerned with its relation to humanity, though, beyond it being the source of all things. I, also, think this prime source is comprised of one thing only … of the most powerful magic in existence: Love.
So … with the opposite of Fear being Love, and the opposite of Love being Fear, if someone is in Fear, it is impossible for them to be in Love. Right? And if being the embodiment of the very Source of all things (aka: God) means being Love, anyone IN Fear, or USING Fear as a means to anything is, in fact, the opposite of God. (Here we go with that dualism again ...)
So, then, how do threats of being cast from Heaven, of being shunned by God, or of burning for eternity in a lake of fire and brimstone represent anything to do with God or God’s “plan” (if such a plan even exists, which I seriously doubt)? To put this into a simple syllogism: Threats = Fear. Fear = Opposite of God. Therefore, Threats = Opposite of God.
Then, uh, would someone please tell me how Organized Western Religion can possibly have any true bearing as something from/of God?
I must confess, this is not the point of Saiving’s article. I have completely digressed. I believe that I’ll leave off of commenting further, as my intention here is not to write a multi-page essay comprised of my thoughts on every single paragraph I read, nor do I actually have any sort of serious interest in discrediting Religion.
I will conclude with this, then (in a wild swing back to the actual topic of Saiving's article): Saiving makes a fascinating point about children first identifying themselves with their mother (having incubated in her and then nursing from her breast) and then having to grow into their separate selves … and that to do so is a tricky thing for boys since they not only have to recognize they’re not a woman, but to additionally become a “not-woman”. By necessity, they have to pick out the parts of her that are NOT them to a much greater degree than little girls do. Hell, even still these days, boys are condemned for “being a ‘pussy’.“ Maybe we women on the whole just let that pendulum swing too far too fast, and then waited too long to attempt to balance the swing. Hm. No, you psycho-patriarchs and misogynists out there, this is not justification for you to say women must now lay in the bed we made ourselves while you continue being assholes, but it IS cause for those of us seeking change to look at what women are NOT doing as closely as we’re looking at what men ARE doing …
I think that part of the problem - maybe the root of the problem - lies in our desire to reduce everything to some sort of object. Objectifying things makes them easy to understand and control, and most people must be in control. Add a little testosterone to the mix, and 5 thousand years of patriarchal hierarchy, and you get institutionalized misogyny. Women become objects - objects of lust, of child-bearing/-rearing, of housekeeping, whatever. Even those who somehow break the mold and become exceptional are just that - exceptions to the rule.
ReplyDeleteHow much better, then, to treat each other with true love and respect, with deference and real regard... How much better that I look at people as people, rather than as objects... How much better that I am viewed in the same light...
Expanding this a little further, it is an easy step to take someone to something, something which can be made a commodity. This is the ultimate failing in capitalist societies - the reduction of everything (!) into a commodity. Things are more valuable due to what they produce/contribute that can be quantified, bought, and sold. One of the greatest disadvantages we (as a society) then give to women is to remove the value of the intangible but absolutely vital and essential contributions they make to our world. The basic unit of society is the family (per the UN declaration on human rights) and the woman - wife, mother, sister, daughter - is the repository for all that is good, cultured, wholesome, and meaningful in that unit - and by extension, in society. You cannot quantify the value of a mother's love and influence, any more than you can quantify the value of a child's laugh, a warm embrace, or the tear-filled eyes of a mother who is proud of her child. Yet these things are real.
If I am good at all, it is because of the influence of good women on me.
Regarding quantifying: One way that Capatalism has increased the "impressiveness" of our GNP (and therefore America's measuring stick of superiority)is by encouraging (nay - coercing) women into working outside the home. You see, that way, our economy can "double dip" on women ... not only does the woman herself become a player in the money game by earning some of her own, she also now exchanges money with someone to raise her children for her. Child-rearing has become something that can be measured in dollars.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is suicide for our culture and societal harmony, it sho' looks good on the bottom line !
disclaimer: I know that there are many women who prefer to work outside the home. And that's awesome ... every person is absolutely entitled to choose the lifestyle this is most rewarding to her/him. My complaint regards those who feel they have no choice but to reluctantly leave the home for the empty purpose of generating money. (According to a study I recently read, the American Family's average income - adjusted for inflation - is approx 8% less than it was in the 1950's. Thing is, the income from the 1950's was generated by *one* working adult ... the income today by *two*. Double the work for less money. This is the basis for my earlier claim of coercion.)