Here are some related thoughts roughly cobbled together. I recently saw a blog post on the commonly accepted idea that after the death of Christ, Christianity quickly devolved into a misogynistic tool of male dominance. The conversation asked, "What woman would want to subject herself to such a religion?" My reaction was too long for a comment. So I will paste my thoughts here, as unpolished as they are.
The idea that women and families were reduced in status through a Christian-invented male hierarchy is a historical fabrication. Few people will argue that pagan Rome "empowered" women. Still, since Christianity is always the culprit, then it bears pointing some things about about the ancient world.
One example is the institution of the Vestal virgins, young women committed to serving the goddess Vesta through a life of chastity. If a vestal virgin was caught in a relationship outside of wedlock, she was executed. Keep in mind this *pre-dated* Christianity. Now, there were influential women in Roman politics, usually wives of Senators or emperors acting as consorts to their husbands, but it wasn't until after the spread of Christianity that the Roman Empire had full fledged Empresses (Irene, Theodora).
With the advent of Christianity, women were given a concrete method of "opting out" of the male dominated world: Christianity began with central ethic of personal asceticism. When Christianity was legalized and turned fashionable, those seeking to retain the core of asceticism left the cities and established intentional communities for men and women (monasteries). Keep in mind that in the pre-Christian culture, a woman's role was identified with property and ultimately her destiny was determined by men, so when women *established their own monasteries* (called convents in the West), they kept no personal property, thus removing themselves from the civic control of males. To this day, when my priest visits an Orthodox convent, he must kiss the hand of the Abbess because she is entitled to the same honor as a male bishop. This is *NOT* because the Orthodox Church has embraced "progressive" theologies. Just the opposite: it is an ancient Christian tradition.
If you recall from the Da Vinci Code, Mary Magdalene's role was "covered up" and erased from history by a hierarchy obsessed with turning Christianity into an ol' boys club. It begs the question: If her prominent role was covered up because of misogyny, then why does the church openly celebrate her (with commemorations on *her* feast day) as *Mary Equal To The Apostles*?
Regarding families in general: In "Meditations" emperor Marcus Aurelius mentions pedophilia in a disturbingly nonchalant manner. Sodomizing boys by rich men may have been uncouth, but it was very much accepted within pagan Roman society. In addition, Tertullian wrote sarcastically to the pagans in his "Apologeticum", "We share everything except our wives - you share nothing except your wives." I suppose when pagans share wives it is called "polyamory" and "sexual exploration". But if ancient Christians shared their wives, we would call it "exploitation" and "oppression", wouldn't we?
If Christianity is the culprit, then why has Japan- with Shinto and Buddhist heritage and notoriously resistant to Christian conversions- continued to be one of the most male-centered cultures in the world? Chinese culture is very much the same way. Hindu and Buddist India- is far more dominated by males than the Judeo-Christian western cultures. (Thought India is admired world-wide for its female political leaders)
The difference is that when people single out Christianity it is called "fighting oppression". But the reason why we never see anyone point out the same (and worse) failings in other cultures because to do so would be "showing intolerance" toward them.
Male domination is not a product of a sinister Christianity, it is a product of our evolutionary biology, where higher levels of testosterone and gender-specific neurophysiology predispose males to being highly competitive, aggressive, and protective over "clan" relationships. This is evolution, pure and simple, and expresses itself in every culture. Finding fault with one-specific religion is not honest history, it is product of *our* culture obsessed with victim-hood and which champions evolution only when it serves our progressive outlook.
The idea that women and families were reduced in status through a Christian-invented male hierarchy is a historical fabrication. Few people will argue that pagan Rome "empowered" women. Still, since Christianity is always the culprit, then it bears pointing some things about about the ancient world.
One example is the institution of the Vestal virgins, young women committed to serving the goddess Vesta through a life of chastity. If a vestal virgin was caught in a relationship outside of wedlock, she was executed. Keep in mind this *pre-dated* Christianity. Now, there were influential women in Roman politics, usually wives of Senators or emperors acting as consorts to their husbands, but it wasn't until after the spread of Christianity that the Roman Empire had full fledged Empresses (Irene, Theodora).
With the advent of Christianity, women were given a concrete method of "opting out" of the male dominated world: Christianity began with central ethic of personal asceticism. When Christianity was legalized and turned fashionable, those seeking to retain the core of asceticism left the cities and established intentional communities for men and women (monasteries). Keep in mind that in the pre-Christian culture, a woman's role was identified with property and ultimately her destiny was determined by men, so when women *established their own monasteries* (called convents in the West), they kept no personal property, thus removing themselves from the civic control of males. To this day, when my priest visits an Orthodox convent, he must kiss the hand of the Abbess because she is entitled to the same honor as a male bishop. This is *NOT* because the Orthodox Church has embraced "progressive" theologies. Just the opposite: it is an ancient Christian tradition.
If you recall from the Da Vinci Code, Mary Magdalene's role was "covered up" and erased from history by a hierarchy obsessed with turning Christianity into an ol' boys club. It begs the question: If her prominent role was covered up because of misogyny, then why does the church openly celebrate her (with commemorations on *her* feast day) as *Mary Equal To The Apostles*?
Regarding families in general: In "Meditations" emperor Marcus Aurelius mentions pedophilia in a disturbingly nonchalant manner. Sodomizing boys by rich men may have been uncouth, but it was very much accepted within pagan Roman society. In addition, Tertullian wrote sarcastically to the pagans in his "Apologeticum", "We share everything except our wives - you share nothing except your wives." I suppose when pagans share wives it is called "polyamory" and "sexual exploration". But if ancient Christians shared their wives, we would call it "exploitation" and "oppression", wouldn't we?
If Christianity is the culprit, then why has Japan- with Shinto and Buddhist heritage and notoriously resistant to Christian conversions- continued to be one of the most male-centered cultures in the world? Chinese culture is very much the same way. Hindu and Buddist India- is far more dominated by males than the Judeo-Christian western cultures. (Thought India is admired world-wide for its female political leaders)
The difference is that when people single out Christianity it is called "fighting oppression". But the reason why we never see anyone point out the same (and worse) failings in other cultures because to do so would be "showing intolerance" toward them.
Male domination is not a product of a sinister Christianity, it is a product of our evolutionary biology, where higher levels of testosterone and gender-specific neurophysiology predispose males to being highly competitive, aggressive, and protective over "clan" relationships. This is evolution, pure and simple, and expresses itself in every culture. Finding fault with one-specific religion is not honest history, it is product of *our* culture obsessed with victim-hood and which champions evolution only when it serves our progressive outlook.
4 comments:
Very well said! I 'm gonna link this blog post on my blog and send you some traffic. www.morningcoffee.blogspot.com
Good stuff. Thanks.
Thanks for getting involved in the discussion on my blog. Here is the link is anybody wants to see what was said:
It started with this post
http://dollymama.blogspot.com/2010/10/escape-flds-and-some-parallels.html
and was discussed more in this one
http://dollymama.blogspot.com/2010/10/this-ones-for-you-alana.html
What I was trying to get talking about in my post was that there have been many people throughout history that have mis-used Christianity as a weapon against women. To address the way you said it, perhaps we could say that Christianity has often been used as a tool for sinful male behavior to thrive. I don't personally believe that this is the correct way for Christianity to be lived out, nor an accurate way to interpret the Bible.
When I asked the question, "What woman would want to subject herself to such a religion?" I was voicing a concern about a perception of Christianity that is alive and well today.
Certainly there are plenty more groups than just Christians to blame for sub-par treatment of women through time and cultures. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that Christianity stands alone in that. I disagree with your statement that Christianity is the only group that gets this sort of scrutiny. I think that people worldwide have been concerned about women's rights in many Islamic countries, as well as African countries for quite awhile.
There is a very strong "Christian" movement alive and well and growing right now that is very extreme in views pertaining to the subjugation of women, and patriarchy in general. (google Vision Forum, No Longer Quivering, and Quivering Daughters, for starters) Spiritual abuse is rampant in these groups as well as many other versions of Christianity. Is it true Christianity? No. But does it harm and destroy in the name of Christianity? You bet. For you to try to wave it away, as if this problem is not real doesn't really help when women are experiencing and observing this garbage quite commonly. Know what I mean?
Maybe because you are male, or because of your church affiliation or experiences you might not be familiar with these things. Fair enough. For those that have lived it, seen it, or cried with those who have, there is a lot to mourn.
Thanks for replying, Dollymama. I didn't see your reply until after the holidays. And even then I wanted to give it the attention it deserved.
"I certainly wasn't trying to imply that Christianity stands alone in that."
Exactly- I did not get the impression you were. That is why I posted what I did without linking directly to your blog; I didn't want to give the impression that I was arguing with your post. And that is why my comment on your blog was a bit different. I agree about your concern over today's perception of Christianity. I simply wanted to offer some historical points- not to counter what you wrote but to support it. I did not intend to give the impression I was debating your post specifically. My point was that in popular culture it is very much accepted to single out Christianity as *the* historical culprit.
You make a good point regarding the attention given to women's rights in Islamic and African countries. In my experience in the art/"bohemian" community, Christianity is frequently singled out.
There is nothing in what I have written where I try to wave it away. Never did I say it was not real. My point is that the problem of violence against women transcends religions and culture. Just because the drive to "be in charge" seems to be hard-wired in the male gender obviously doesn't excuse those cultures where males dominate through intimidation and sadism.
"Maybe because you are male, or because of your church affiliation or experiences you might not be familiar with these things."
This is extremely condescending. This was my experience: For years I watched my mother live under a dominating and abusive husband who crushed her spirit and self-image as well as my own. I hope this meets your criteria for being "familiar with these things."
Post a Comment