The analogy that many patriarchal Christians use and that is quoted from the bible* is that "the husband is to be to the wife as Jesus was to the church". Well Jesus is Lord, and is the head of the church, so . . . you get the picture.
*Ephesians 5:22, 28-31. "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wife as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church . . . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shal.1 be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh".
So as you seek a place of refuge from the bitter cold discrimination and stifling of your voice in the secular world, at work, politically, and otherwise; you are brought to relieve this in a temple that does not acknowledge or see you or any aspect of you in the divine. You seek refuge in a place where once again, your voice is second, your identity never spoken only "implied", and your command taken from masculinity. Surely this reinforces and validates what the world has shown you all along, so why, how could you mount up rage against what is ordained by God? Finally, you go to your home where you are supposed to find love, and if there is a male there - he often requires that you continue your efforts in subjugation in honor of him, after all you must model what you just worshiped and learned in church, he is the head, you are the follower. Notions of 1 head, in in environment where there are clearly 2 brains still baffles me and the inefficiency and injustice in this concept when both of those brains are human brains registers to me as one of the most diluted plans for successful family life and world that we have yet to invent as humans. And if you are like most, you are raising children to see you as less than your male counterpart - he is the authority figure - he has last say. So in my opinion the stripping of femininity from the divine, the rejection of the feminine from the divine, and the complete masculinization of the divine is perhaps the most dangerous of all constructs of domination and oppression since this is psychologically manipulating to the female psyche, far more damaging than any harm done to the flesh; and if successful will result in her reinforcing and contributing to her OWN unintentional and intentional continual deconstruction of her power in her efforts to achieve spiritual virtue. It makes her spiritual quest, her aspirations to find acceptance in the divine, her aspiration to be righteous dependent upon her acceptance and efforts to achieve her own self dis-empowerment. The destruction of the feminine identity of the divine, the complete exclusion of anything feminine within the definition of the divine, ritualized female self dehumanization. It ritualized the repeated stripping of the divine of femininity, and female self dis-empowerment. It also reinforces domination theory as "divine" and "right" and it gives indisputable validation to male claims to male "inherent" and "divinely given" authority OVER the female. In fact, as they stand, these constructs necessitate female subjugation as an important and essential activity of the "righteous" Christian-Judea male in his aspiration for righteousness. And makes it very difficult to engage people in thoughts to the contrary, because to dispute this is blasphemous! Meanwhile, while you will have significant opposition to this argument among traditional Christians who argue that it is blasphemous not to consider god the "Father", they often were the same ones who challenged white images of Christ arguing that praising and worshiping a white divinity and the exclusion of other races from the image of the divine was damaging to the formation of healthy self-worth of non-whites.
Yes I went there. Check out Corey Golkes on this topic, excerpts and URL for a great article below.
And please TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK!
Below are excerpts and a link to an outstanding analysis of this:
See below Excerpts from "Re-Examinging the Sex of God and "His" Servants" by Corey Golkes
URL: http://www.rootswomen.com/articles/09022011.html
Accessed: 3/26/12
Golkes states:
"...the removal and denial of female deities and divine concepts is inextricably linked to the removal and denial of feminine authority and influence in the economic, political and social spheres.
In our society – which for the most part retains a romantic, anti-intellectual attachment to the bible and things religious – merely asking questions such as why "god" is referred to in gender-specific terms is in many people's minds as heretical as challenging the authenticity of the bible. Whenever the subject is brought up, responses range from outright anger to derision to uncomfortable attempts to change the subject.
"God" is above such carnal concerns as race and sex. But both men and women unconsciously defer to gender-specific (read masculine) definitions of the Divine when they refer to the creator using a variety of titles almost all of which reinforce the idea that the Divine is exclusively male: god, Lord, the Creator, the Father, the Master, the Boss, Papa God, the "Man above" and so on. And they often do so without stopping to ask in any detailed manner why this is so. Such is the extent to which it has been ingrained into our consciousness that gender-specific terms and titles can speak on behalf of all humanity. So much have people come to accept, in spite of the view they themselves express that the Almighty they revere is without form in the physical, carnal sense, that there can be no thinking of expressing that divine being other than in exclusively masculine terms.
However, it is very important for the reader to understand that what we are discussing here, the removal or submerging of divine femininity in Western thought began even before the very existence of what we call Western thought so that by the time the ideas that form the fundamentals of Greek, Roman and Christian worldview came into existence anti-female attitudes had already been firmly embedded in human consciousness in Eurasia.
But again, why? Why should this be so crucial? It can be argued that for hundreds of years women have taken heart and inspiration from that supposedly masculine image of god and used that image to live pure, righteous lives anyway; shining examples to others. This is true, when viewed from a particular angle. But those who argue this forget that words have power, words have influence. Words can convey thoughts, ideas and expectations that can inspire a person to accomplish tremendous things – or very little at all. In much the same way that a people of colour worshipping a white, blonde mythical figure can unconsciously defer authority to actual people who look like that – to their detriment – so too people, regardless of their sex, worshipping a deity with masculine features and masculine traits have been unconsciously conducting themselves in keeping with the cultural ideals of a predominantly masculinist culture. This is one of the main points of my argument: that even in this supposedly enlightened time, the principal barrier preventing women from being even more assertive and self-confident (than they already are) in the political and economic arenas, while at the same time doing so with the qualities and outlook normally identified exclusively with femininity, is largely psychological. In this context, the psychological barrier comes from a deep-seated acceptance of "god" as being exclusively male – with all the behaviours associated therewith. Doing so consciously and unconsciously makes it difficult for one half of humanity – women – to truly see themselves or be seen as "godly" in their natural feminine selves.
Sceptical questions and comments like these should be familiar to some: for instance, anyone who has ever attempted to discuss whether Jesus or Adam and Eve were black people – and treated with the same derision or indifference. Whether any of these characters were real, historical figures is not so much of importance here (they're not, by the way); what is important is their relevance, their psychological impact.
In fact, I have often asked, if the issue is so trivial, then how come the framers of these ideas didn't see it fit to (openly) factor in clearly feminine aspects into their ideas of the Almighty even self is "fuh manners"? It would not have affected anything, right? Setting aside the semi-literate bible-wavers (and Qur'an-wavers too for that matter) who remain firm in their assumptions that all this came through men "inspired by god" and so never give it any thought, we need to see that this was something that had an historical beginning and something that has far reaching implications.
The point is that given the influence the supernatural – Divine/religion/etc – had on the minds of people in ancient societies, "god" was corralled into justifying masculine-oriented customs that served the interests of these ancient patriarchists.
Reconceptualising "god" or the Divine to incorporate aspects associated with femininity will ultimately lead to ideas that women, feminine values and behaviours can also be equated with power and are no less suitable than men to control power. Wrestling with the question of the "sex" of the Almighty and by extension female authority even in the divine sphere may very well be the last hurdle in bringing about a more balanced society."
No comments:
Post a Comment