|
Post by anatheist on Jun 23, 2010 15:36:53 GMT -5
I'd say that emasculation (genuine emasculation and not loss of machismo) deals with a lot of the same issues as defeminization. It's a man losing power over his choices that deal with his own body. Defeminization differs in that it generally deals with reproductive issues that men biologically don't have.
Fundamentalist groups can be genuinely emasculating as well as defeminizing. The man loses power over how he gets to relate to his family. He loses power over how he gets to spend his income. He's expected to show certain emotions in front of god (but really in front of other men) - see the emotional behavior at Promise Keepers for an example, but to repress other emotions when they suddenly become "unmanly". So as the book that Vyckie reviewed posits, he takes out his emasculation on his family, through a show of hyper-masculinity.
Less than a man is a "slave to Christ".
To me, it's the other side of how a woman who just wanted to please god and fit into a church becomes a tyrant to her children or to other women through hyper-feminization. Both the women and the men in this kind of fundamentalism have lost (or given away) their autonomy as people, so feel the urge to prove that they're even more of a man or more of a woman than you are. "I have long skirts and tea parties and 15 children, so obviously I'm a success at being a woman", right?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 17:57:09 GMT -5
Cherylannhannah: Christian Identity is a phrase that stands in for White Identity. What you're describing here is a Neo-Nazi group, so I'm not surprised that you found racism and anti-Semitism there. I have often wondered how much QF culture overlaps with White Identity movements. I hadn't heard anyone mention direct experience with it until you brought this up. It's unsurprising that there is some overlap, though, particularly as many early Dominionists were well-known anti-Semites and racists (RJ Rushdoony, most notoriously). ETA: I don't know your husband, and I don't mean to come down harshly... But it does sound like you and your family have changed a lot since then. I just... I sorta hope your husband is now disgusted with the fact that he brought the family into a hate group back then. I don't mean to condemn you personally, and I'm wondering if this is something of a regional difference. If you were from the US South, as I am, you couldn't possibly have ever been as uneducated as you were about the group your family got involved with. But when I have lived in Canada and even in the US Northeast, I have run into this often: people who don't know the basic buzzwords that identify White Identity hate groups. I know I'm having almost a personal reaction to it: "Homeschooled the children so they would be sheltered and then introduced them to a bunch of damned Neo-Nazis!" The involvement of any Christians in this is utterly shameful (I don't mean you--I know you're not in it now). I tend not to draw a lot of boundaries around faith since I'm not a very orthodox Christian myself, but I'll be damned; I have to say, I think white supremacy makes people Not-Actually-Christians. ETA again: Argh, sorry, looks like rosa already explained this. My husband is now my ex-husband and as far as I know, he hasn't changed his views of this at all. The fact that we were QF was co-incidental to his being involved with CI. I never bought into those views at any time and it was a source of great conflict in our home because I could not let some of the serious Scripture twisting that took place go by without comment. I didn't want my children listening to this stuff uncritically so whenever something was brought up that was glaringly wrong, I would speak up, even in the middle of a taped "sermon" during our family worship time. This usually resulted in me being dragged into the office by my husband while the children were left to sit in the living room waiting. I would then be haranged for several hours about how I was a rebellious wife, it was my fault my kids were rebellious, etc., etc. Looking back now, I think it probably qualifies for a form of religious persecution that I was subjected to. My ex-husband's views that he was the head of the home and therefore the one to set the spiritual tone for all that took place there was to place himself as a mediator between me and God and between the children and God. I wouldn't accept it. He wouldn't accept that I had a right to my own conscience and that he was not the Lord of it. The marriage might have lasted longer if he had learned to live and let live, but patriarchal views of family leadership blasted that out of the water. Can't say I'm sorry that it happened and in many ways I wish it had happened sooner. My family *has* changed, but it happened because I finally left him when his abusive ways continued and escalated things with the children. I had six children leave home before the age of 18 thanks to him and was on the verge of losing another one and having social services intervene in the family yet again. Regarding anti-Semitism, I can't recall anything specifically by Rushdoony that suggested he was anti-Semitic. I know a great many Dominionists are post-millenial and look forward to the restoration of Israel and they are not anti-Semitic though they do deplore some of the unrighteous things that Israel is doing to the Palestinians. There is fault on both sides of that particular situation, if you ask me. Glad to hear you got out of that marriage. This sounds like it was the best thing you could have done for you and you children. wrt Rushdoony, I can look for some quotes, though I probably won't have time to do it tonight. Soon-ish. I know that I have read some. I agree that Israel has done some deplorable things, but I do prefer to distance myself from the Neo-Nazi critique of Israel as you did (as well as the Christian Zionist defense of it, as far as that goes).
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 17:59:02 GMT -5
KM - You don’t sound patronizing at all. You sound rather level-headed and thoughtful to me. Thank you for respecting me by not assuming that I’m trying to *convert* you. (You aren’t trying to *convert* me though, are you?! OMG!) Heh, no, didn't you see the part where I said there would be no point?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 18:02:17 GMT -5
I too am uncomfortable with man-bashing as a generality. For me it's one thing to oppose an abusive religion or movement, to object strenuously to the leaders and preachers in that movement, to disdain particular men who have shown themselves to be worthy of disdain, and quite another to simply dismiss all men of fundamentalism as having 'tiny wee-wees' and insulting their intelligence and mental stability. Completely agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Jun 24, 2010 12:06:29 GMT -5
Persecution complexes are a standard part of evangelicalism in my experience whether patriarchy is involved or not. Being "persecuted" is the fast track to stardom in that world. If you can rearrange any given situation to make yourself a victim of persecution for your faith, you will get all kinds of positive attention from your church community and maybe even from the broader evangelical world. Persecution is proof that you are "living the faith" better than others around you.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 24, 2010 12:46:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the well wishes, those who posted well wishes.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jun 27, 2010 7:45:02 GMT -5
Persecution complexes are a standard part of evangelicalism in my experience whether patriarchy is involved or not. Being "persecuted" is the fast track to stardom in that world. If you can rearrange any given situation to make yourself a victim of persecution for your faith, you will get all kinds of positive attention from your church community and maybe even from the broader evangelical world. Persecution is proof that you are "living the faith" better than others around you. Absolutely! "we must be doing something right, we are experiencing persecution!" Said with great joy. I kind of agree with the point made in the original post, that men who are robbed of their power will in turn rob those "under" them of theirs. But I have also experienced men who will not bow to anyone. My FIL is one of these chronically persecuted people who believes everyone out there is evil and wishes only harm to him and his family (that, of course, includes me and my children whom he wishes only to "protect" by keeping us under his tyranny) It's not uncommon for him to interpret prosecution for breaking the law as persecution for being a Christian. Laws are all devised to control people and finally destroy Christians and bla di bla. He doesn't last long in churches, but he reigns as lord over his home, and over anyone who will let him!
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Jul 7, 2010 6:28:30 GMT -5
Here's a guy's perspective on this matter. Last Nov, when I first joined this forum, I mentioned this book:
Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God's Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Phallus-Howard-Eilberg-Schwartz/dp/0807012254/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278498747&sr=1-1)
I discovered this book in 2006 and was amazed and relieved that someone else was addressing something that for years had bothered me as an evangelical/charismatic christian.
We heard endless sermons based on Song of Solomon, in which Jesus was portrayed as the ultra-virile warrior-king, and we, individual Christians, were supposed to be his passionate brides. The sermons and songs we sang were rife with romantic, erotic and even sexual (although somewhat veiled) language.
In order to enter into worship and intimacy, the men in the churches had to imagine themselves as female brides, being ravished by an Alpha-Male king. One of the songs, for example, was addressed to Jesus, and the melody was slow and syrupy, with major 7th and 9th chords. The chorus goes:
Let me know the kisses of Your mouth Let me feel Your warm embrace Let me smell the fragrance of Your touch Let me see Your lovely face Take me away with You Even so, Lord, come
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLO8OkgX424)
That song, however, was very toned down and light, compared to many of the other "Please ravish me in your bed chamber, Jesus!" songs.
This emphasis seemed to work quite well for hetero females and gay men. Some men perhaps weren't gay, but somehow learned the art of spiritual transgenderment. They could do a psychical version of the Lou Reed lyric, "He shaved his legs and he was a she..."
But I couldn't relate. I couldn't image myself as a bride. I didn't want to feel the kisses of a male lover-god. In the same chapter that Vyckie reviewed, Chris Hedges made a brief reference to this very issue.
I've seen a whole generation of young evangelical males, who ironically are as anti-gay as they come. Yet they were all being emasculated in this way. I remember one young man at a conference who spoke to me with face aglow and said, "Last night I had a dream in which Jesus came to me. And He gave me a rose!"
If I, a hetero male, were to relate romantically and with sublimated eroticism to the deity, it would have to be a female form of deity; i.e. a goddess. But that of course would make me a vile heretic, a pagan. Socially and sexually I was commanded to be 100% heterosexual, but spiritually I was commanded to be 100% female in the arms of a male god.
One well-known prayer leader of the Christian Right obviously struggled with this issue, and he came up with a unique solution. He preached one day about "the warrior-bride." "You go into the secret place with Jesus and feel his caresses and kisses," he said, "and then you come out with your armor and sword and storm the gates of hell!"
Had Chris Hedges been at that Colorado Springs church that day. It would have given him the perfect illustration for his chapter. To compensate for his emasculation, for his being spiritually penetrated by the ultimate Alpha Male of the universe, the pastor became all the more belligerent in his religious right war efforts.
After a few years of this emphasis in the churches, and after finding a long tradition of it in church history (e.g. Saint Bernard, Rupert of Deutz, etc.), I began to cool off spiritually. When I went to church I felt like an outsider looking in. I noticed that many in the congregation were in the habit of using their laptops to take sermon notes, and that became a perfect cover. Every Sunday I sat with my laptop, supposedly taking sermon notes, but really working on other projects.
Then I read Eilberg-Schwartz's book and found I wasn't alone. Like Hedges, he claimed that this form of monotheism emasculates men. But he spent a whole book on the subject, going back to the book of Genesis, then onward throughout Jewish and Christian history.
|
|
|
Post by zoeygirl on Jul 8, 2010 0:19:53 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing this, jwr. I never even thought about some modern worship music this way. And I've never heard Song of Solomon interpreted as being about Jesus and his bride--I was taught that it was about the relationship between men and women.
I was on another blog where someone complained about the "feminization of the church". I didn't know what he meant, but your post explains it perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 8, 2010 1:20:13 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing this, jwr. I never even thought about some modern worship music this way. And I've never heard Song of Solomon interpreted as being about Jesus and his bride--I was taught that it was about the relationship between men and women. I was on another blog where someone complained about the "feminization of the church". I didn't know what he meant, but your post explains it perfectly. I know, I read that too but I can't recall where it was. It rang so true, though. The male pentecostal and evangelical leaders on tv tend to wear pastel suits and have girly perms and are all weepy and hand-wringing and it's really jarring to see them. That is not an attractive look for a man. But then on the other end of that spectrum there's the hyper-manic-masculine body building karate chopping guys who growl and scream and declare Jesus was a manly man... Seriously, can't guys just be guys and leave all this crap aside? It just makes them look like freaks on different ends of the spectrum. Just be a guy. How hard can that be? I was always taught Song of Solomon as a spiritual love poem between God and his people. But that was it, no 'let's have sex with God now' vibe was in sight when I was in the evangelical/fundamentalist arena twenty five years ago. The guys in my group would have scoffed at singing songs like the ones jwr is talking about. It just sounds so skeezy. Even as a woman I would be uncomfortable singing songs like that to God in mixed company at the very least. As a guy it would be not be happening. It's unseemly. And it's intrusive, to ask people to worship in music that way in public. Whatever your prayer and relationship with God is in your 'prayer closet', you shouldn't have to expose that to your entire congregation like that. That's such a personal prayer and worship. If you are someone who feels like those songs reflect your feelings and relationship with God then it is still very personal and not for public display. I guess what I'm saying is 'ick'. ------- ETA: I say the pastels and perms and hand wringing is weird because they are supposedly representing this very hetero married guy image in their religion and the way they present themselves is very fake and feminine in relation to that. Also, that I find it unattractive, but that's just me. If they were gay men that would be a whole 'nother situation because that's an entirely different lifestyle and culture and that would be more acceptable to the circumstances. I'm saying this badly, I hope I haven't offended anyone. The second thing I wanted to add is that the feminization of the church goes much deeper than these superficial things. It's a huge subject with many parts and layers. I'm just addressing dress and music in my post. People make things so difficult. God made us to be whoever we are. We should just go be that. But no, we insist on twisting ourselves around to fit some model of what someone somewhere else says we should appear to be, like they have the inside track on our lives... Even me. I hate the pastel suit/perminess. If you are a guy who loves the pastel suits and perms, follow your bliss. Don't mind me.
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Jul 8, 2010 2:51:13 GMT -5
@zoegirl and Nakita,
Thanks for your posts. I've been around this a long time and it's really, really pervasive in the charismatic world. Here's some background info you might be find interesting.
Song of Solomon (SOS) is probably of Egyptian origin, was later adapted and edited by the Hebrews, who ascribed it to Solomon. It was originally a human-human love poem, about a man and his favorite wife. For centuries, Hebrew minstrels sang large sections of it during wedding receptions. Most everyone was drunk, and the songs were very bawdy (but we don't recognize them as so, because the Ancient Near Eastern metaphors don't sound nearly as sexed-up to us as they did to the early hearers). In the first century A.D. Rabbi Aquiba, scandalized by the drunken wedding songs, declared that SOS was not really about human love, but rather was allegorical of Yahweh's love for Israel. Many Christian interpreters tweaked this slightly, saying it was about Christ's love for the Church.
But Origen claimed SOS was about Christ's love for the individual believer (not just the corporate Bride of Christ). Centuries later, St. Bernard took this notion really far, and wrote endless sermons on SOS. Since they were male monks, envisioning themselves as female brides, the conceptual framework was homoerotic. The most homoerotic of them all was St. John of the Cross, whose love poems to Jesus are full of desperate passion.
This practice is commonly known as "bridal mysticism," or, as Anne Astell of Cornell University calls it, "personal brideship."
Starting in the 1990s, the leaders of Kansas City Fellowship, a charismatic group, brought St. Bernard's bridal mysticism to a new generation. But whereas Bernard and the others had the decency to practice their brideship in the private of the monasteries, today's charismatics lie on floors in public venues, gesticulating and moaning, saying things like, "Oh, Jesus my lover, my husband, take me now, ravish me with your love...Oooh..." The men who do this are obviously being emasculated.
The following are excerpts from some of my past research on mysticism: ----------------
Leon J. Podles, himself a practicing Catholic, makes the following observations about Bernard:
"Bernard claimed that 'if a love relationship is the special and outstanding characteristic of a bride and groom it is not unfitting to call the soul that God loves a bride'… Having established the principle for the use of such language, Bernard then elaborated. He referred to himself as a 'woman' and advised his monks to become 'mothers'—to 'let your breasts expand with milk, not swell with passion'—to emphasize their paradoxical status and worldly weakness" (Leon J. Podles, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. (Dallas: Spence Publishing Co., 1999), pp. 103-104).
--------------
[Bernard and his contemporaries constantly spoke of being kissed and penetrated by Christ]. Was the divine kissing and penetration only thought to be allegorical or figurative? For some, no doubt, it was only figurative. Yet for others it was a passionate experience that we contemporary people would call “sublimation.” In these powerful visionary states, spiritual ecstasies often induced physiological reactions. This is illustrated in the life of one of Bernard’s contemporaries, Rupert of Deutz: "Consider, for example, Rupert’s description of his vision of his divine lover, Jesus: ‘When I quickly entered [the altar] I took hold of him whom my soul loved. I held him, I embraced him, I kissed him for a long time. I felt how deeply he appreciated this sign of love when, in the midst of the kiss, he opened his mouth so that I could kiss him more deeply.’ " (Quoted in Jeffrey J. Kripal, Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom: Eroticism and Reflexivity in the Study of Mysticism. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 71.) Carolyn W. Bynum (University of Washington), discussing Rupert’s passion, also notes that he, “felt Christ’s tongue in his mouth” (Caroline Walker Bynum, “The Body of Christ in the Later Middle Ages: A Reply to Leo Steinberg.” Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3. (Autumn, 1986), pp. 406-407).
And then there is the issue of the carnals fluxus liquore. Again, in Kripal’s words:
"Finally, in order to complicate things even further and call for a truly embodied reading of mystical texts, recall that Bonaventure, one of the tradition’s great mystical theologians, was quite clear that the ecstasies of male mystics often produce real sexual fluids: 'In the spiritualibus affectionibus carnals fluxus liquore maculantur' he wrote ('Within the spiritual affections, they are stained with the liquid of the carnal flow') (Kripal, Roads... , pp. 71,72).
------------
Saint John of the Cross wrote poems in which he cast himself in the role of a woman who has secret rendezvous with a male lover who ravishes "her" to ecstasy. We assume the lover to be Christ, but since the words "Christ" and "Jesus" are absent we can't know for sure. At any rate, the great saint assumes the role of a woman sneaking out at night for a secret encounter.
John wrote most of his poems while imprisoned by a rival band of monks in their monastery. For some reason, they kept him locked away in the latrine. Why the latrine? I wonder. Someone who felt sorry for him gave him writing utensils. Below is one of his latrine poems. When his abusers had gone to sleep, leaving him in relative peace, he could spiritually travel (mystically dissociate) to a rendezvous with his heavenly lover. In that imaginal place, John, the beaten, abused and degraded "woman," became a beautiful lady, of “flowery breast”; most tenderly loved.
STANZAS OF THE SOUL by Saint John of the Cross
On a dark night, Kindled in love with yearnings-oh, happy chance! – I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.
In darkness and secure, By the secret ladder, dis- guised – oh, happy chance! – In darkness and in concealment, My house being now at rest.
In the happy night, In secret, when none saw me, Nor I beheld aught, Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart.
This light guided me More surely than the light of noonday To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me – A place where none appeared.
Oh, night that guided me, Oh, night more lovely than the dawn, Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover, Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Upon my flowery breast, Kept wholly for himself alone, There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him, And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
The breeze blew from the turret As I parted his locks; With his gentle hand he wounded my neck And caused all my sense to be suspended.
I remained, lost in oblivion; My face I reclined on the Beloved. All ceased and I abandoned myself, Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 8, 2010 3:10:22 GMT -5
Aaaaand....that's where they lose me. I have always had a strong mystical bent. Always. And when I came away from my cult and chose to become a Catholic convert it was a purely mystical decision followed by a lot of 'you're kidding, right God? Well, let me study up on this then...' on my part. I totally get the mystical brideship of the poem and the impulse, regardless of where it first originated. But charismatics lose me in the public displays of way too personal sexual imagery and demonstrations with this stuff. Be mystical. Be the bride. Just do it privately.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jul 8, 2010 6:13:20 GMT -5
Robert Price says it's a hymn to the goddess Ishtar and her lover Tammuz, whom she rescued from the underworld.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jul 8, 2010 13:23:29 GMT -5
WOW, jwr! I was not aware of the Saint John of the Cross stuff. However, it immediately put me in mind of Our Lady of the Flowers (Notre Dame des Fleurs) by Jean Genet. It's one of those weird reads that makes you almost simultaneously weep over the beauty of the language and gag over the depravity of the lives it's describing.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jul 8, 2010 14:21:19 GMT -5
That Kansas City stuff just makes me want to puke.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jul 8, 2010 19:46:51 GMT -5
I think there is an element of fetishizing Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jul 10, 2010 21:42:42 GMT -5
I wonder if some of the mystics were actually gay and found a Church-approved way of dealing with their feelings for other men by directing them towards Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 10, 2010 22:16:39 GMT -5
I wonder if some of the mystics were actually gay and found a Church-approved way of dealing with their feelings for other men by directing them towards Jesus. I wouldn't rule out anything at any time at any place, but I also would not assume that this explains mystical experiences and worship for the majority of people. There is certainly a sublimation of the sexual drive that takes place when one becomes celibate, but that doesn't presuppose any particular sexual orientation and is an entirely different thing. I say this as someone with a strong mystical bent within prayer and worship and it is not a sexual thing at all. But some of this Kansas City stuff seems developed by people who are a little confused in what they are doing. I wouldn't call that worship music 'mystical' by any stretch. More 'goopy', with a strong 'ick' factor. Real mysticism is much harder, a lifetime of work, not an easy sexy singalong.
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Jul 11, 2010 1:05:49 GMT -5
I wonder if some of the mystics were actually gay and found a Church-approved way of dealing with their feelings for other men by directing them towards Jesus. Jeane, You hit the nail right on the head. I'm going to copy a link to an article here. About six months ago I referred someone else on this forum to the same link. This forum member is extremely sharp and nuanced in all her posts, but when she read the article she said, "I just don't get it." Perhaps the reason she didn't get it, was that Vyckie hadn't yet posted her "emasculation" thread, and thus there was no real context or background to interact with. But now that the cat's out of the bag, it might make more sense. There are many varieties of mystical experience in the world, but here we're only speaking of "bridal mysticism." The world's great bridal mystics have been hetero females who had little or no romantic and sexual release; and homosexually oriented males, who forbidden by the church to act out physically and socially, discovered an acceptable outlet: sublimation. By channelling the homoerotic energies upward they actually became saints. I've already mentioned some of the male bridal mystics in my above post; here are a few from the female hall of fame: Teresa of Avilla, Catherine of Sienna and Madame Guyon (unlike the others, Guyon never became a saint. Instead she was imprisoned for heretical ideas). Having said so much on the issue in these threads, I feel the need to clarify two things: 1. I don't believe mysticism, bridal or otherwise, is wrong or merely psychosis. Neither do I condemn sublimation. These things can be beautiful and transformative for some people. I only object to churches making it the normative paradigm that all Christians are supposed to follow. That's what caused people like me to get alienated. And, as someone else wrote above, it should be done in secret, not made into cheap exhibitionism. 2. And I totally agree with Nikita when she wrote, "Real mysticism is much harder, a lifetime of work, not an easy sexy singalong." Anyway, here's the link to the article: www.crosscurrents.org/Kripal0304.htm
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 11, 2010 1:44:26 GMT -5
Thanks jwr. The thing I wanted to respond to in my prior post was that sometimes I hear people translating absolutely everything historical in my faith in terms of sexual desire and actions, including prayer and holy orders. I get a little defensive.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 11, 2010 11:19:13 GMT -5
Yeah... I find this whole topic *interesting*... but the idea that christianity is more suited to women because men are having to translate more to feel comfortable? Oh please. Give me a break. This is just a single rather small element which is of more modern popularity-- having men have to internally translate to fit as bride. Maybe it is precisely BECAUSE men have for centuries been the "brothers of the church" and "father son human relationship" and "Jesus died to save all men" and "all men might come to the Father." Etc. etc. times one hundred thousand million. Women have had to translate even to get the understanding that they are *saved* and even STILL there are some quotes, like I believe one by Luther, which trumped up "women are saved through childbearing" or something. I.e., saved through their relationship with a son or husband or father or else some other MAN who could help them get into heaven. (or heck, Jesus, Men can get back into heaven, but women? Well, a woman could damn us all, but no female incarnation could save us-- THAT required masculinity apparently. And I do think that there is at least an unconscious recognition of that fact-- in that element of thought that women can't be saved as easily) Anyway a couple links, fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2010/02/religion-with-god-father-not-manly.htmlfanniesroom.blogspot.com/2010/06/usual.htmlfanniesroom.blogspot.com/2010/07/fun-with-contradictions.htmlYou could even look through the entire set with the "religion" label: fanniesroom.blogspot.com/search/label/ReligionI think that perhaps it is because men have traditionally NOT had to do ANY translation to feel comfortable in the church, that it's so noticed and remarked upon and hand-wringing and energy is being expended to fix it. Women's alienation in church is just taken for granted-- up to the individual woman to deal with it or else. Nobody else's problem, nobody else cares NEARLY that much. Precisely BECAUSE it is endemic and poisons nearly everything IN church language and function. Sorry everyone for the rant....
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Jul 11, 2010 12:43:57 GMT -5
Hey Jemand
No problems here with the rant. Gender is always a sticky problem with most religions.
With the men, there does seem to be some sort of pecking order pattern emerging.
1. In Vyckie's review of Hedges' book, the men are emasculated, and then vent their rage about it by oppressing women.
2. In the church I alluded to in one of the posts in this thread, the pastor was emasculated by becoming a bride, and to compensate became an even more belligerent religious right warrior.
3. And the same Saint Bernard, the most womanly of all male saints, also wrote a long and convincing letter to the Pope, which lead the Pope to initiate the first Crusade. It looks like the same pattern: trying to overcome emasculation by swinging to the other end of the pendulum of hyper and abusive masculinity.
And of course you're right; women always got shafted one way or another. The specific manner in which women have been oppressed differ than that which men have suffered, but patriarchy is destructive to both genders, and to those stuck somewhere in the middle of the genders.
Very complicated, twisted stuff this is...
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jul 11, 2010 14:41:27 GMT -5
nikita, I didn't mean to imply that all mysticism could be reduced to sex, or that a mystic's sexual orientation somehow cheapens his or her experiences. Looking back, I can see how my post seems dismissive of mysticism. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 11, 2010 19:29:58 GMT -5
Yeah... I find this whole topic *interesting*... but the idea that christianity is more suited to women because men are having to translate more to feel comfortable? Oh please. Give me a break. I spoke of "translating" the ancients in a prior post so I'm not sure if this rant is directed at me or not. What I was referring to was translating everything in terms of sexuality, not gender bias. What I mean was making it all sexual as in 'having sex' 'thinking about sex' 'being homoerotic' etc. That there was some of that but that I think it is over-applied in twentieth century analysis of ancient writings and scripture. The fact that it is all tipped toward men as a gender I have no problem with at all. That is demonstrably true. The issue I have is when someone ancient is said to love anyone at all it is suddenly sexualized, including the love of God and/or Christ. And I think I mentioned that I'm a tad defensive about this on the mystical thing, so I keep feeling like I have to mention it when it gets brought up instead of just keeping quiet. I don't know, it's a thing with me. I hope this clarifies what I was saying, even if no one else agrees with me on it I at least wanted to be clear that I wasn't disputing the obvious gender bias of pretty much all religions and scriptures (the major ones anyway).
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Jul 11, 2010 20:46:04 GMT -5
WOW, jwr! I was not aware of the Saint John of the Cross stuff. However, it immediately put me in mind of Our Lady of the Flowers (Notre Dame des Fleurs) by Jean Genet. It's one of those weird reads that makes you almost simultaneously weep over the beauty of the language and gag over the depravity of the lives it's describing. ambrosia, I was aware of who Genet was, because of Sartre's famous essay on him. But I've never read his stuff. After reading your post, I looked up Our Lady of the Flowers on Wiki and got the main idea of it. I doesn't at all surprise me that it reminded you of St. John of the Cross. Saint John and Saint Genet: mirror-image brothers. Perhaps I'll read Genet's " Our Lady..." someday.
|
|