travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) (10/20/90)
In article <1990Oct18.003900.28134@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > > phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: > >Well, I am afraid that I totally disagree with this. I find the teachings > >of Jesus and the tenets of feminism (and socialism for that matter) > >absolutely compatible. > > You're missing the point. A *male* god sent down a *male* to redeem > us. That's a significant sign of androcentrism. Well, if a male god really had sent down his male son, there wouldn't be much to argue about, would there? There are other ways to consider the issue. A large number of writings were gathered into two canons of the Old and New Testaments. Many of earlier Old Testament writings had been written and edited by several different people, some of which wrote of a god with no specific gender. For example, compare the two different creation myths that appear in Genesis 1 and 2. As a Catholic, you were only pointed at the parts of the Old Testament that reinforced Catholic doctrine. When the earlier form of the Catholic Church was gathering writings for the New Testament, they were explicitly choosing which would appear, and in which order. The Gospels, for example, were chosen to reemphasize the Christian assertion that Jesus was the messiah, with the very first lines asserting his lineage. John the Baptist's revelatory encounters with him were stressed, and so on. All of these editorial acts were to convince a skeptical or hostile Jewish public of Jesus' divinity. Much, if not all, of this writing and editing was performed by males, for males, in an androcentric society. When considering the Bible, one cannot ignore these elements of choice, that they occured in a particular societal context, or that influential people like Paul changed the way that the Church would view women. It was Paul who declared that no women could perform church services -- they had been for some time -- and Paul's epistles were included in the canon while others were not. Other early figures of the Church, such as Augustine, helped to cement the secondary status of women and its horrified fascination with the flesh. People like Paul and Augustine convinced others by the force of their personality. However, we live in a different sort of society now. Because we are aware of explicit acts of interpretation, such as the creation of the Christian bible, we can recreate and reinterpret them. For instance, I read a fascinating book on the internal battle fought by some Christian missionaries who are seeking to change the church's attitude towards polygamy, arguing that the monogamous relationships defined by the New Testament were only the reflection of societal conditions at that time by those people. They had to argue within fine lines, naturally, but this is precisely the type of reinterpretation that some Christian Feminists feel they can do. (The reason polygamy, nearly always polygnous polygamy, was advocated by these missionaries is because of the damage inflicted on families in parts of Africa, where polygamy exists for other than religious reasons. Male converts to Christianity are forced to divorce all but one of their wives and abandon their children. The missionaries could not reconcile this with the monogamous doctrines they had been taught.) > >I am no feminist theorist but I believe feminism is about true equality > >between men and women. Jesus was about true equality among all people > >("love your neighbour (male or female) as yourself") > > Jesus sounds like a really wise *man*. Get it? Like his dad and the > overwhelming majority of prophets, Jesus was male. Well, there were only two choices, unless you count hermaphrodites. I suppose the Christian God could have sent down a Messiah with no gender at all, just smooth like a Ken doll, if He had really thought to make a big deal about it. I'm not a Christian either, obviously, but I can say that Jesus' gender did not completely determine his message. A female Jesus could have said Love thy neighbor as yourself. Even though one didn't, there's nothing wrong in considering it as an important message. Note also that you subvert your own message -- i.e., that gender is not important -- when you refuse to overlook the gender of the Christian Messiah. > I'm impressed by the misguided tenacity with which people attempt to > rationalize and even deny the gender bias of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic > tradition. I realize now that I was quite lucky to survive my years of > Catholic indoctrination with my ability to question reasonably intact. Although one might note a tendency to insist on your own dogmatism; perhaps this is the legacy of Catholicism that you have kept. Many people have found meaning and beauty in Christianity; let them. There are few absolutes here. t
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/20/90)
travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >Well, if a male god really had sent down his male son, there wouldn't >be much to argue about, would there? You're missing the point. I'm not interested in the truth or falsehood of the scriptures. I'm simply questioning the relevance of grotesquely androcentric scriptures to a feminist agenda. >There are other ways to consider the issue. A large number of >writings were gathered into two canons of the Old and New Testaments. >Many of earlier Old Testament writings had been written and edited by >several different people, some of which wrote of a god with no >specific gender. For example, compare the two different creation >myths that appear in Genesis 1 and 2. As a Catholic, you were only >pointed at the parts of the Old Testament that reinforced Catholic >doctrine. The insinuation that I've only read the parts of the Bible I was "pointed to" as a Catholic child is unwarranted. Why would I be raising the questions that I am if my Biblical reading simply "reinforced Catholic doctrine"? What difference does it make to modern women if millenia ago, a few genderless gods were propagated? I'm dealing with a modern phenomenon, not esoteric redaction theory.(Redaction--not reduction, is the study of the origins and validity of scriptural material) >People like Paul and Augustine convinced others by the force of their >personality. However, we live in a different sort of society now. >Because we are aware of explicit acts of interpretation, such as the >creation of the Christian bible, we can recreate and reinterpret them. My question is given the many more pressing issues on any feminist agenda I've heard, why bother with this recreation and reinterpretation? It may be time to move on, and focus our energy on reeducating the men of this world. (It's certainly time to wrap up this thread!) [Or start another direction? Do we dispense with religion, rework existing ones, or create new ones? --CLT] >Well, there were only two choices, unless you count hermaphrodites. I >suppose the Christian God could have sent down a Messiah with no >gender at all, just smooth like a Ken doll, if He had really thought >to make a big deal about it. Yes, he obviously didn't, did he? The whole reason this newsgroup exists is that gender bias *is* a big deal. >Note also that you subvert your own message -- i.e., that gender is >not important -- when you refuse to overlook the gender of the >Christian Messiah. I see. Just like feminists subvert their agenda when they refuse to overlook the gender of the people oppressing them. >Although one might note a tendency to insist on your own dogmatism; Speak for yourself. >perhaps this is the legacy of Catholicism that you have kept. Many >people have found meaning and beauty in Christianity; let them. There >are few absolutes here. No. There are many absolutely oppressed women whose aspirations are stifled by the different manifestations of J-C-I tradition. Too many. The personal jabs have no basis. I think I'm right and so do you. If that's dogma, you're equally guilty. I guess that just makes you Catholic, then. Jones Physics Department California Institute of Technology
judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (10/26/90)
In article <9010191803.AA14586@liberty.cs.columbia.edu> travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >I'm not a Christian either, obviously, but I can say that Jesus' >gender did not completely determine his message. A female Jesus could >have said Love thy neighbor as yourself. Even though one didn't, >there's nothing wrong in considering it as an important message. I agree with your posting, but want to point out that since it was an androcentric society in which Jesus preaching, a female would not have been heard. Also, a lot has been said about the lack of women in the Bible. But there were Mary, Mary Magdeline, and Martha. They were part of Jesus' life and treated with respect. Jesus preached to the world as it was at that time. He saved a woman from being stoned for being a prostitute. He talked to a woman at the well (Philistine?) whom his society considered an outcast. God sent the best messenger to deliver the message. In an androcentric society, that messenger had to be male to be heard. If you want to argue that Paul was a chauvanist, I will agree. But to brand Christianity as counterproductive to feminism is to ignore the basic core of Christianity - the teachings of Jesus. Judy
travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct19.221509.8092@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > > travis@liberty.cs.columbia.EDU (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > > >Well, if a male god really had sent down his male son, there wouldn't > >be much to argue about, would there? > > You're missing the point. I'm not interested in the truth or falsehood > of the scriptures. I'm simply questioning the relevance of grotesquely > androcentric scriptures to a feminist agenda. You say that people are missing the point and maintain that you're only "questioning" things. However, your "questions" are phrased as declarative and absolute. You continue to use absolute phraseology such as "absolutely oppressed" and "grotesquely androcentric". To my mind, this indicates that you're not considering any possible useful contribution from Christianity. I can't go that far. > What difference does it make to modern women if millenia ago, a > few genderless gods were propagated? I'm dealing with a modern > phenomenon, not esoteric redaction theory. Well, I simply don't believe in modern phenomena of the type you seem to desire. If it were easy to replace Christanity with a less harmful set of philosophies, the western world could have done this centuries ago, when more harmful crimes than androcentric biases were in living memory. However, no one can escape the past, not even in the supposedly all-rational sciences. As members of the western world, Christianity is deeply interwoven in our culture and our modes of thinking. Only lengthy, patient questioning of ourselves can ever change it. While I share some of your eagerness to just toss Christianity away, I don't think that can happen in our lifetimes. I doubt you would agree if I were to say that we could just toss racism and sexism away, that we can act freely now that everyone is completely equal. > >People like Paul and Augustine convinced others by the force of their > >personality. However, we live in a different sort of society now. > >Because we are aware of explicit acts of interpretation, such as the > >creation of the Christian bible, we can recreate and reinterpret them. > > My question is given the many more pressing issues on any feminist > agenda I've heard, why bother with this recreation and > reinterpretation? It may be time to move on, and focus our energy on > reeducating the men of this world. (It's certainly time to wrap up > this thread!) Why? Are you serious? Because a search for faith is not idle recreation, it is the search for meaning in our personal lives. Why do we all die? Why do good, innocent people die and suffer terribly? How can evil deeds go unpunished? How are `good', `innocent', and `evil' fairly reckoned? Men and women in the modern world _must_ interpret Christianity, or whatever religion they were raised with, because most people cannot "move on", ever, even if their religion is directly harmful to them as men or women. Attitudes and beliefs are not theorems; it is futile to pretend otherwise. You sometimes write as if you had never seen a self-destructive belief system persist in someone you know -- yet this cannot be true. > [Or start another direction? Do we dispense with religion, rework > existing ones, or create new ones? --CLT] Or all three. It's mostly up to the people searching for faith. As an agnostic, I'm just kibitzing, apart from figuring out Christianity's effects on me personally. > >Note also that you subvert your own message -- i.e., that gender is > >not important -- when you refuse to overlook the gender of the > >Christian Messiah. > > I see. Just like feminists subvert their agenda when they refuse to > overlook the gender of the people oppressing them. No, just like thoughtful people will seek to recognize truth no matter what its source. Either what you assert is true -- or usefully revealing or important -- or it is not. If the Christian message is completely determined by the historical Jesus' gender, then so are your arguments completely determined by your gender, equally true with me. However, if what you say as a male can be true, then so can the Christian message be true, important, etc. (Why do you construct such strawmen arguments? You know I've never denied the importance of gender.) Much harm has been done in the name of Christianity, but it's foolish to stop one's consideration of an entire philosophy with the genitals of one of its prophets. Granted, your point rests on more than this, but you have posted several articles along the lines of "Look, a male god sent down a _man_. Get it?" as if the rest of us hadn't noticed. > >perhaps this is the legacy of Catholicism that you have kept. Many > >people have found meaning and beauty in Christianity; let them. There > >are few absolutes here. > > No. There are many absolutely oppressed women whose aspirations are > stifled by the different manifestations of J-C-I tradition. Too many. I'm sorry, but I must disagree again with your use of the word "absolute". It's not that I haven't considered oppression carried out in the name of one of these faiths, only that I don't consider it my business to give the final decision on the "oppressiveness" of a particular set of beliefs. I'll question anything, of course; but generally I'm just not willing to tell women or homosexuals or whomever might be targeted as a group that they should toss their belief system in favor of some unspecified, "rational" alternative. If you feel you have the answers on the meaning of life, good for you. However, I won't reject as much as you seem willing to. I remain extremely skeptical that some aspects of religious belief can ever be easily tossed away. Finally, I recognize that there are conservative and progressive and fundamentalist elements of all of the world's religions, and I believe this will probably never change. > The personal jabs have no basis. I think I'm right and so do you. If > that's dogma, you're equally guilty. I guess that just makes you > Catholic, then. Actually, part of my deep interest in texts comes out of my youth as a Southern Baptist. I still consider many of your articles dogmatic, although I'm not trying to make "personal jabs" in saying so. There is a great deal more to the mantle of Christianity than a belief in a (white, male) Christian god. You can't toss off your youth easily. t -- "Patriotism, red hot, is compatible with the existence of a neglect of national interests, a dishonesty, a cold indifference to the suffering of millions. Patriotism is largely pride and largely combativeness. Patriotism generally has a chip on its shoulder." -- Charlotte Perkins Gillman (1898)