In brief: women keeping women in their place

(In brief because I’m still too busy with work.)

If you need any convincing today that religion and feminism just do not mix, have a read of this piece. The site on which I found the piece seems to be devoted to merging religion and the state as much as it can (and we all know what a good idea that is!), and claims that it wishes to “support the self-evident truths found in the Declaration of Independence, and their faithful application through upholding the U.S. Constitution, as written. Its purpose is to thoughtfully and courageously advance the cause of our nation’s Founders”. Um.

The piece in question maintains that the Christian church (denomination unclear) has bought into the “lie” of feminism and women’s rights. In doing so, the church has  allowed the poor menz to be emasculated and has (breathe deeply) put women on the pulpit. Women don’t have “god-given” roles. Men do. Women should be kept in their place. And that place is not the pulpit. Bonnie Alba, there. She knows her place.

When we see women pastors standing in the pulpit, we have to wonder, what happened? to the men and male leadership? Thirty years of being emasculated and undermined by women striving for an equality they already had, men have ceded to women. Men have abandoned their God-given roles.

Reading further, the author engages in a little bit of slut-shaming just for good measure. “Fallen women” always want a man to blame, or something. That bit doesn’t make a great deal of sense. I think she just wanted to have a bit of a go but wasn’t really sure how to go about it.

The author concludes that because of feminism (read: women in general) the US of A is on its frickin’ knees. Much like women should be, I dare say…

6 responses to “In brief: women keeping women in their place

  1. According the scripture (or as I prefer to call it Christian mythology) she has a point. Ephesians 5:22-33 instructs women to be submissive to their men. 1 Timothy 2:12 prevents a woman from teaching or having authority over a man and to shut her mouth when men are around. 1 Timothy 2:14 blames women for the fall of man as we all know what infernal influences they are on men. 1 Peter 3:3 tells women not to dress up, wear jewellery or otherwise adorn themselves (2000 year old slut shaming) and a few verses later in 1 Peter 3:7 it refers to women as the weaker sex. There’s loads more if you really want to churn up the anti-Christian rage a bit.

    That’s what you get for basing your moral code on something knocked up by goat herders out of the Iron Age. We’re not in the Iron Age any more. A lot of the really sexist stuff comes from Paul and his letters (or his scribes letter’s). Now there really was a woman hater. Even more comes from church tradition.

    Having said that there is always a lot to interpret in Scripture.

    Contrary to Alba’s apparent opinion there isn’t anything that prevents women from being members of the priesthood in scripture. There isn’t even a mention of any kind of Christian priesthood so why would there be rules about it. Jesus was a Jew and the stories in the Gospels tell of a man who was content to remain a Jew as long as the Hebrew faith wasn’t corrupted and abused. There is nothing to suggest that he wanted to form a new religion and set up rules for men and women to live by. That’s Paul and later on St Augustine’s doing.

    In fact Junia is mentioned in Romans and it is largely accepted that she was a female apostle. This contradicts Alba’s assertion immediately. There are also many times where Jesus humbles himself before women (the adulterers who would have been stoned, the woman at the well in Samaria, the curing of the crippled woman on the Sabbath) and he refers to women often in his parables in a positive way. Then there are the disciples Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna who have equal place in his ministry.

    So even in the mythology of Christianity Alba can be shown to be wrong. If only she was brave enough to question her assumptions and anti-feminist rhetoric. By saying the things she has in her article she is only pandering to one particular viewpoint within the Christian Cult of Ignorance and as a woman it does her no favours. It merely provided misogynists with ammunition to deny her and other women equality. She is trading that equality for a pat on the head from the religious right.

    • She is indeed (trading equality for a pat on the head). It’s what I don’t understand about the likes of Alba, Palin et al. In all of their blatantly anti-women pronouncements, they never seem to consider that they are disabling their own status and chances of equality. Even if you have very little self-awareness, you could surely see that?

      And indeed, there are lots of parts of the bible that emphasise a woman’s lesser place. What a pity for her and her followers that she accepts that message unquestionably. I refer again to their consideration of their own statuses.

      Of course, there are women who AGREE that women are secondary to men, that they shouldn’t be allowed power, and that they should always be unequal and lesser. In favour as I am of women believing what they want, for telling them that what they think is wrong and unacceptable is also problematic, particularly if they have been indoctrinated/ socialised into thinking it, that does boggle the mind.

      • I don’t understand the appeal either. Perhaps it is similar to a slave demanding slavery because it is all that they have ever known? A kind of Stockholm Syndrome for oppressed and belittled women. I don’t know. It seems though that they are well able to create a dissonance between their opinions about women and society and their position as respected women in society. I don’t doubt that part of this comes from privilege. I’m sure that if they had ever experienced real discrimination then it would be more difficult for them to advocate it. So says the white, working middle class, heterosexual man.

        • Ha, yes, speaking of privilege! But it’s true that it’s very seldom lesbian, working class women of colour (for example) calling for a limitation on women’s rights.

  2. Women should be subordinate to men not equal or dominant over men. It ruins a man’s masculinity and causes him to blow up at her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s