The Taliban must be smiling over Asheville Christian Academy’s recent decision (ll/17/09) to exclude women from serving on its board. The Taliban might even be rethinking its strategy. Rather than seek to destroy our way of life, they may choose to nurture this spore of their ideology which is thriving in western North Carolina. This is not a stretch. The Board has manipulated a sacred text to claim dominance over women just as the clerics have done with the Koran. There are two versions of the Creation story in the Bible. Men and women were created equally at the same instant in one version but it is apparent the one studied by these insecure men is the “rib version.” They argue that women’s temperaments are not suited to making tough decisions. Tell that to Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor as well as Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Those bylaws weren't written in 1972 but rather 972.
To read the entirety of the article printed in the Asheville Citizen Times, follow this link: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009911170322
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Lioness on the Cheese Grater
I was recently checking out a synopsis of Lysistrata, the Greek comedy written by Aristophanes around 411 BCE. The women of Greece, sick of the wars on the Peloponnesis (431-404 BCE), took the dramatic step of denying men sex until they ceased the insanity. They also took over the acropolis which held the state treasury to hamper funding of the war. In a long, detailed oath the women abjure all their sexual pleasures, including the ever-popular ancient Greek position called "The Lioness on the Cheese Grater."
Well, I just had to know what this was. My research did not yield the answer, nor a picture, but I did come across an excellent blog on the more serious side of this topic. If you have time, check out the link below. It is about the steps that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first female president of Liberia, is taking to heal the wounds of civil war brought on by the men. "Her leadership is helping to inspire her countrywomen to seize control of their nation’s destiny, pulling it from the whirlpool of civil war onto the solid ground of a functioning democracy," he writes.
She is not doing it by denying sex to bring about change but she is modeling what female leadership looks like. Our priorities are different and with more in power, it is entirely possible the world would be a gentler place.
http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=57
Well, I just had to know what this was. My research did not yield the answer, nor a picture, but I did come across an excellent blog on the more serious side of this topic. If you have time, check out the link below. It is about the steps that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first female president of Liberia, is taking to heal the wounds of civil war brought on by the men. "Her leadership is helping to inspire her countrywomen to seize control of their nation’s destiny, pulling it from the whirlpool of civil war onto the solid ground of a functioning democracy," he writes.
She is not doing it by denying sex to bring about change but she is modeling what female leadership looks like. Our priorities are different and with more in power, it is entirely possible the world would be a gentler place.
http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=57
Monday, August 24, 2009
Making (Informed) Choices
In the past 50 years, the nation's food source has changed dramatically. The emergence of the fast food industry was the catalyst for this change. Books such as Fast Food Nation and In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto are today's Upton Sinclair-style exposés. Community seminars are also shedding light on the deleterious impact of the shift from family farms to highly mechanized agri-conglomerates on our environment and the nation's health.
Yet film is often unparalleled when it comes to getting a message across. This is certainly true of the recent documentary film "Food, Inc.," produced by Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser. American consumers, it maintains, are blithely unaware of where their food sources with most laboring under the impression that it comes from bucolic farms. Viewers see, instead, a highly mechanized process run by poorly paid workers who are nothing more than human machines doing one simple task over and over again. The workers are treated only slightly better than the animals they are processing.
The message is clear. Consumers desirous of changing this scenario can make a difference by buying locally and/or making educated choices at the grocery store. Big business responds to consumer dollars.
Many people will choose not to see the film or read the books. One reason is they don't want to know. One person stated, "I don't want to see it (Food, Inc.) as I might become a vegetarian." It is a sad situation when one chooses not to know rather than be faced with having to make a change. It IS possible to have the information and NOT make a change but isn't it just better to know rather than to live in a deluded state? Ultimately the illusion falls away and then it is often too late to make another choice.
Yet film is often unparalleled when it comes to getting a message across. This is certainly true of the recent documentary film "Food, Inc.," produced by Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser. American consumers, it maintains, are blithely unaware of where their food sources with most laboring under the impression that it comes from bucolic farms. Viewers see, instead, a highly mechanized process run by poorly paid workers who are nothing more than human machines doing one simple task over and over again. The workers are treated only slightly better than the animals they are processing.
The message is clear. Consumers desirous of changing this scenario can make a difference by buying locally and/or making educated choices at the grocery store. Big business responds to consumer dollars.
Many people will choose not to see the film or read the books. One reason is they don't want to know. One person stated, "I don't want to see it (Food, Inc.) as I might become a vegetarian." It is a sad situation when one chooses not to know rather than be faced with having to make a change. It IS possible to have the information and NOT make a change but isn't it just better to know rather than to live in a deluded state? Ultimately the illusion falls away and then it is often too late to make another choice.
Imprisoning Your Friends
When I chose to change my name, I was taken aback by people's reactions. Some felt threatened while others were fearful. Quite a few thought my decision outlandish. It just isn't done. Society is supposed to do that for you either at birth, in the schoolyard or at a marriage ceremony. On the flip side, my open-minded family loved me enough to honor my request with nary a grumble.
Apparently it is part of man's nature that once a person is sized up, that person must dutifully conform to that view for all eternity. Non-conforming people make other people feel uncomfortable. Stability is the key and even the most benign ripple disturbs slumbering solidified attitudes.
Vladimir Nabokov expresses this idea in Lolita far better than I ever could...
“I have often noticed that we are inclined to endow our friends with the stability of type that literary characters acquire in the reader’s mind. No matter how many times we read ‘King Lear,’ never shall we find the good king banging his tankard in high revelry, all woes forgotten, at a jolly reunion with his three daughters and their lapdogs. Never will Emma rally, revived by the sympathetic salts in Flaubert’s father’s timely tear.
Whatever evolution this or that popular character has gone through between the book covers, his fate is fixed in our minds, and, similarly, we expect our friends to follow this or that logical and conventional pattern we have fixed for them. Thus X will never compose the immortal music that would clash with the second-rate symphonies he has accustomed us to. Y will never commit murder. Under no circumstances can Z ever betray us.
We have it all arranged in our minds, and the less often we see a particular person the more satisfying it is to check how obediently he conforms to our notion of him every time we hear of him. Any deviation in the fates we have ordained would strike us as not only anomalous but unethical. We would prefer not to have known at all our neighbor, the retired hot-dog stand operator, if it turns out he has just produced the greatest book of poetry his age has seen.”
Apparently it is part of man's nature that once a person is sized up, that person must dutifully conform to that view for all eternity. Non-conforming people make other people feel uncomfortable. Stability is the key and even the most benign ripple disturbs slumbering solidified attitudes.
Vladimir Nabokov expresses this idea in Lolita far better than I ever could...
“I have often noticed that we are inclined to endow our friends with the stability of type that literary characters acquire in the reader’s mind. No matter how many times we read ‘King Lear,’ never shall we find the good king banging his tankard in high revelry, all woes forgotten, at a jolly reunion with his three daughters and their lapdogs. Never will Emma rally, revived by the sympathetic salts in Flaubert’s father’s timely tear.
Whatever evolution this or that popular character has gone through between the book covers, his fate is fixed in our minds, and, similarly, we expect our friends to follow this or that logical and conventional pattern we have fixed for them. Thus X will never compose the immortal music that would clash with the second-rate symphonies he has accustomed us to. Y will never commit murder. Under no circumstances can Z ever betray us.
We have it all arranged in our minds, and the less often we see a particular person the more satisfying it is to check how obediently he conforms to our notion of him every time we hear of him. Any deviation in the fates we have ordained would strike us as not only anomalous but unethical. We would prefer not to have known at all our neighbor, the retired hot-dog stand operator, if it turns out he has just produced the greatest book of poetry his age has seen.”
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Rest of the Story
Experience teaches us there are two sides to every story. Rare is the objectively transmitted tale. This is true with the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. In 622 BCE, King Josiah of Judah (641-609 BCE) began extensive building work on Solomon’s Temple. During construction, the Book of the Law was discovered and was said to be the authentic law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. According to Bedouin tradition, this is where God transmitted His laws to the Israelites (c. 1490 BCE).
Most scholars agree it can’t be. Moses lived during a time of oral tradition. There is no evidence that Yahweh’s teachings had been written down during this time frame. Think about it. Bedouins are moving from place to place, trying to survive. Writing is not exactly a key survival skill and writing was a hallmark of settled societies. More to the point, the first authors of the Bible, the priestly guys known as J and E, wrote Moses delivered it orally. (Check out Exodus 19:5-8.) Moses spoke Yahweh’s words to the people and they orally affirmed their submission to Yahweh. “All that Yahweh has spoken, we will do.” J and E did not mention the Ten Commandments.
So where do we get the image of Moses holding a stone tablet of the Big Ten? The majority of Bible scholars finger King Josiah. The scrolls were an early version of the what is now known as the Book of Deuteronomy. Instead of being an ancient document, this was an entirely new scripture. It described Moses delivering a second law in Greek Deuteronium to his people from Mt. Nebo shortly before his death. Scholars date it to the late 7th century BCE and is likely the product of the religious reforms mandated by King Josiah.
You see Josiah, whose country was enjoying a respite from being a vassal to Assyria now that Eqypt had run the Assyrians out of the Levant, decided to strut its independence. His people had not only been worshipping their national god, Yahweh, (who had been arbitrarily chosen from the pantheon of gods being worshipped way back when) but other gods such as Baal and Ashura. These latter gods were Assyrian. Josiah wanted to make a declaration of independence from all things Assyrian. The world of Yahweh was in danger and Josiah needed to save it.
Josiah had to persuade his people to only follow Yahweh. How did he do it? He enrolled in an continuing ed course called Establishing a New Religion 101. To impart a new religious teaching, you must attribute your words to a great figure of the past (or from on high.) The scribes, called the Deuteronomists, believed they were speaking for Moses. They wrote down the laws King Josiah wanted his subjects to follow and claimed them to be the long-lost words of Moses.
Since people rarely question anything, they believed it. After all the people in power say it is true. Must be.
All it took for me to believe was a picture of long-bearded (read: wise) Moses holding the slate on the mountain top (complete with ominous clouds and lightening) and I believed. It is so easy to lead people with an image. It is also easy to lead people if you say something emphatically enough. Madison Avenue and politicians know that. If images and sound bytes won’t work, celebrity will. (Yes even sacred figures are celebrities.) If so and so says that/buys that/wear that then it must be right/good/best/true.
So how did the Ten Commandments come to be mentioned in the Book of Exodus? Lather authors of the Bible wove it in, hoping to appear seamless, but thinking people actually caught on. Scholars question so now I know…. the rest of the story.
Sources: How the Bible Became a Book by William Schniedewind
The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong
Wikipedia
Harper’s Bible Dictionary by Paul J. Achtemeier
Deuteronomy NIBC by Christopher Wright
Most scholars agree it can’t be. Moses lived during a time of oral tradition. There is no evidence that Yahweh’s teachings had been written down during this time frame. Think about it. Bedouins are moving from place to place, trying to survive. Writing is not exactly a key survival skill and writing was a hallmark of settled societies. More to the point, the first authors of the Bible, the priestly guys known as J and E, wrote Moses delivered it orally. (Check out Exodus 19:5-8.) Moses spoke Yahweh’s words to the people and they orally affirmed their submission to Yahweh. “All that Yahweh has spoken, we will do.” J and E did not mention the Ten Commandments.
So where do we get the image of Moses holding a stone tablet of the Big Ten? The majority of Bible scholars finger King Josiah. The scrolls were an early version of the what is now known as the Book of Deuteronomy. Instead of being an ancient document, this was an entirely new scripture. It described Moses delivering a second law in Greek Deuteronium to his people from Mt. Nebo shortly before his death. Scholars date it to the late 7th century BCE and is likely the product of the religious reforms mandated by King Josiah.
You see Josiah, whose country was enjoying a respite from being a vassal to Assyria now that Eqypt had run the Assyrians out of the Levant, decided to strut its independence. His people had not only been worshipping their national god, Yahweh, (who had been arbitrarily chosen from the pantheon of gods being worshipped way back when) but other gods such as Baal and Ashura. These latter gods were Assyrian. Josiah wanted to make a declaration of independence from all things Assyrian. The world of Yahweh was in danger and Josiah needed to save it.
Josiah had to persuade his people to only follow Yahweh. How did he do it? He enrolled in an continuing ed course called Establishing a New Religion 101. To impart a new religious teaching, you must attribute your words to a great figure of the past (or from on high.) The scribes, called the Deuteronomists, believed they were speaking for Moses. They wrote down the laws King Josiah wanted his subjects to follow and claimed them to be the long-lost words of Moses.
Since people rarely question anything, they believed it. After all the people in power say it is true. Must be.
All it took for me to believe was a picture of long-bearded (read: wise) Moses holding the slate on the mountain top (complete with ominous clouds and lightening) and I believed. It is so easy to lead people with an image. It is also easy to lead people if you say something emphatically enough. Madison Avenue and politicians know that. If images and sound bytes won’t work, celebrity will. (Yes even sacred figures are celebrities.) If so and so says that/buys that/wear that then it must be right/good/best/true.
So how did the Ten Commandments come to be mentioned in the Book of Exodus? Lather authors of the Bible wove it in, hoping to appear seamless, but thinking people actually caught on. Scholars question so now I know…. the rest of the story.
Sources: How the Bible Became a Book by William Schniedewind
The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong
Wikipedia
Harper’s Bible Dictionary by Paul J. Achtemeier
Deuteronomy NIBC by Christopher Wright
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Benefits of War
Revolt has long been employed by the oppressed for upsetting the status quo. The by-products of war and rebellion are its concomitant casualties, triumphs, heros and martyrs, all duly recorded by historians. Yet the process itself -- the very mechanics of war -- can spawn great social change.
In the late 8th century Greece, the manufacture of weapons advanced considerably enabling the city-states to equip large armies. These armies were crucial in protecting their growing populations and resources. Anyone who could afford a weapon could become a hoplite, a citizen-soldier. The battlefields, once the pervue of the nobility, became great equalizers when farmers and peasants joined the fight in defense of the polis. It is here one can find the tap root of democracy. This term, a combination of the Greek words, "demos" and "kratos", roughly means "people rule" or "people strength." "
In the late 8th century Greece, the manufacture of weapons advanced considerably enabling the city-states to equip large armies. These armies were crucial in protecting their growing populations and resources. Anyone who could afford a weapon could become a hoplite, a citizen-soldier. The battlefields, once the pervue of the nobility, became great equalizers when farmers and peasants joined the fight in defense of the polis. It is here one can find the tap root of democracy. This term, a combination of the Greek words, "demos" and "kratos", roughly means "people rule" or "people strength." "
Democracy works when arbitrary social barriers are ignored and people work together for a common good, a common wealth. To exclude a group is to strangle the principle. The more exclusions, the less effective it will be and revolt, not to sound like a Marxist, will ultimately ensue. Just look at history.
The Allies desperately needed "people strength" to win the second World War. The arbitrary barriers of race and gender had to be lowered to pull off this victory. Ironically, a war meant to establish a supremicist race inadvertently gave minorities a unique opportunity. The Allied war machine needed "people strength" to fuel it. The "noble class" was forced to remove the self-destructive barriers to minority groups in order to add strength to the cause. Women proved extremely proficient in providing goods and servies for the war effort. The idea of "men-only" trades got ground up in the cogs of war machinery. African-Americans and Japanese-Americans fought valiantly alongside the "aristocratic" white male soldiers. Misconceptions -- enemies far more dangerous than the Nazi foes -- were blown apart. Extreme valor was seen across the ranks, regardless of color or class. It was the strength of an allied people (white, black, men, women) that won this war. Had we stayed the course by keeping our society segregated and minorities marginalized, the world would be a much different place today.
Women, in particular, must recognize that not all the costs of war are terrible. WWII accelerated the pace towards achieving full equality one day. The seed of democracy, it can be argued, was watered by war. Minorities still seek an equal share in the harvest but why must it be gathered up on the battlefields?
There is still the illusion harbored by many that one group is better than the other. It is necessary for many to believe this in order to feel greater than. When we can drop these illusions and artificial barriers, our world will be better, stronger. Let us no longer look to war as the answer. We can advance our civilization without it if
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Women -- the Second Sex?
Simone de Beauvoir wrote in 1949 that women are the second sex. It is 2009 and they are still considered thus. How sad that half of humanity is seen as less than. Even women believe it, if not intellectually, then on a subconscious level due to brain washing. If they didn't, they would not stand for the injustices against them ranging from clidorectomy to non-existent or inferior educational opportunities to honor killings to lesser pay for the same work.
If you are on a computer reading this blog, you may begin to argue vociferously against this statement. It would be easy to understand why if you are a woman of privilege or power but take yourself out of your self-made universe, of which you are the shining star, and check out the rest of the world. This is a global phenomenon and most women have accepted the inequity.
Only a handful of women such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, her buddy Susan B. Anthony and lesser known women like Esfand Farrokhrou Parsa (the first woman in the Iranian cabinet), have dared to challenge the status quo. The rest have, maybe with a bit of grumbling, carved out lives within the confines of this rigid class system.
It is breathtaking that there has not been a total revolt against this worldwide prejudice. Strides have been made (and I applaud Nicolas Sarkozy's June 22, 2009 stand that burqas will not be tolerated in France) but the scale is still waaay out of balance. What rights women have gained have been largely through intellectual argument rather than through the force of arms which, by the way, may lend credence to the argument that women deal with injustice in a more rational manner.
It is not a overstatement to say that discrimination against women is second only to global warming.
Cultures develop their unique set of rules and customs. These rules are basically made by those with the power and, the longer a culture endures, the harder it is to question and revise those rules. Tradition has an inertia on par with the expanding universe. (For those who would like to trace the origin of our present day beliefs and norms, I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation.)
Religion is the cornerstone of most cultures, and it has been employed effectively in putting society's heel on the throats of women, children and slaves for centuries. Religious leaders (male, of course) have manipulated thoughts of well meaning prophets to reinforce their positions of dominance. Women and children, fearing the supposed wrath of God/Allah/Yahweh, are kept in line through the effective use of fear and, if they dare challenge that status quo, must endure derision, ostracism, beatings, even death in some countries. Incredibly, after generations, most women have been so totally brainwashed that they abhor anyone else questioning these "truths." They feel extremely threatened and will defend their right to their substandard place in society as arduously as any man.
Here's an example of what I mean: Muhammed's stated initial encounter with the angel Gabriel resulted in the Koran. After his wife of 24 years died (a wealthy international trader who supported him), he made addendums to his visions -- addendums that he claimed were God-given visions. These revisions are suspect in that they conveniently fall in lock step with his needs. Addendum #1: Men are in charge of women. Addendum #2: A man can have up to four wives. (He, being a follower of Allah, dutifully compiled by immediately taking two wives, one of which was a 9-year-old girl.) Addendum #3: A father can marry the wife of his son (put in place when he desired the wife of his adopted son.) Addendum #4: Muhammed can marry more than 4 women. (He claimed he did so for tribal alliances.)
Today there are thousands of women in Muslim countries that believe with every fiber of their being that this is what Allah wants. Muslims aren't the only ones to blindly follow. Most have not bothered to examine the etiology of their faiths. If so, they would see how the faith was twisted by men to keep women in place (and other surprising facts to know and tell.)
(By the way, just so the reader knows I am not trying to single out a particular culture or the Islamic faith, Christian-led England did not allow women to own property until the mid-1800s. Muhammad advocated this right for women in the 7th century. During the rise of the Greek city states in the 8th century BCE, everybody could become a citizen except slaves and women. These were aggressively male states. During the preceeding Dark Age, women had enjoyed a better status but during this new age they were marginalized, segregated in their family homes and rarely seen in the streets. So the Muslims were not the first to sequester women. Islam borrowed many of it current abhorrent practices from surrounding cultures.)
Islam does not stand alone in its religious injustice. Preachers of Christianity have been equally unjust. (John Calvin quickly comes to mind here.) There are two versions of the Creation story in the Bible: one that has God creating man and woman at the same time as equals and the other version proclaiming woman was created from the rib of man. Guess which one is usually preached from the pulpit? No wonder women feel subordinate to men. They have been taught this from childhood. If this is the premise one starts with then man can use the "logic" that woman is a helpmate to man. In logic, the premise must be true for other truths to follow. If the premise is wrong, what follows cannot be true. Which version is the correct version if one believes that every word in the Bible is true?
It is human nature to resist giving up cherished beliefs. People rather persist in a belief than consider they may be wrong. Few people have the courage to admit they were wrong and to make a change. Change is one of the scariest things a person can do. True beliefs can withstand close examination and do not involve wishful thinking. If questioning shows a weakness in the argument, most would rather disparage the questioner than have to re-examine closely held beliefs. The Catholic Church put to death anyone who thought the world was round but one need not go back that far for an example. There are still people who believe that African-Americans are intellectually inferior to whites and will put you in a world of hurt if you argue too strongly against this.
Since I am interested in pursuing truth, my first litmus test is...is this true for everyone at anytime? If this system were just, then men would not mind if the tables were turned. They would undergo surgery to eradicate pleasure from the sexual act. They would be understanding when their wife took on extra husbands. They would obediently sit/walk behind their woman. They would not grumble for being paid less for the same work. They would not be bothered that, although they are half of the population, they only have marginal representation in government. They would not rebell against being disenfranchised from the vote. And they certainly buy in, at the deepest level, that they are less than.
The truth is....the woman's movement has stalled and women falsely believe that the fight is over. While the majority of the women in the world still suffer from true injustice the fight must continue. What is true is that it won't change if women do not become more vocal about it. The truth is women need to realize they are not the second sex and need to see themselves as powerful and worthy of respect across the board -- from the workplace to the bedroom.
If any reader wishes to challenge this post in any way, I welcome it. I do not profess to know everything and I am quite willing to change. I have made tremendous changes and been forced to examine my own closely held beliefs. If someone can show me that my belief about women's status is wrong, I actually would welcome it. What a tremendous relief that would be and I could feel comfortable about not only my daughters' future but the future of daughters everywhere.
If you are on a computer reading this blog, you may begin to argue vociferously against this statement. It would be easy to understand why if you are a woman of privilege or power but take yourself out of your self-made universe, of which you are the shining star, and check out the rest of the world. This is a global phenomenon and most women have accepted the inequity.
Only a handful of women such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, her buddy Susan B. Anthony and lesser known women like Esfand Farrokhrou Parsa (the first woman in the Iranian cabinet), have dared to challenge the status quo. The rest have, maybe with a bit of grumbling, carved out lives within the confines of this rigid class system.
It is breathtaking that there has not been a total revolt against this worldwide prejudice. Strides have been made (and I applaud Nicolas Sarkozy's June 22, 2009 stand that burqas will not be tolerated in France) but the scale is still waaay out of balance. What rights women have gained have been largely through intellectual argument rather than through the force of arms which, by the way, may lend credence to the argument that women deal with injustice in a more rational manner.
It is not a overstatement to say that discrimination against women is second only to global warming.
Cultures develop their unique set of rules and customs. These rules are basically made by those with the power and, the longer a culture endures, the harder it is to question and revise those rules. Tradition has an inertia on par with the expanding universe. (For those who would like to trace the origin of our present day beliefs and norms, I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation.)
Religion is the cornerstone of most cultures, and it has been employed effectively in putting society's heel on the throats of women, children and slaves for centuries. Religious leaders (male, of course) have manipulated thoughts of well meaning prophets to reinforce their positions of dominance. Women and children, fearing the supposed wrath of God/Allah/Yahweh, are kept in line through the effective use of fear and, if they dare challenge that status quo, must endure derision, ostracism, beatings, even death in some countries. Incredibly, after generations, most women have been so totally brainwashed that they abhor anyone else questioning these "truths." They feel extremely threatened and will defend their right to their substandard place in society as arduously as any man.
Here's an example of what I mean: Muhammed's stated initial encounter with the angel Gabriel resulted in the Koran. After his wife of 24 years died (a wealthy international trader who supported him), he made addendums to his visions -- addendums that he claimed were God-given visions. These revisions are suspect in that they conveniently fall in lock step with his needs. Addendum #1: Men are in charge of women. Addendum #2: A man can have up to four wives. (He, being a follower of Allah, dutifully compiled by immediately taking two wives, one of which was a 9-year-old girl.) Addendum #3: A father can marry the wife of his son (put in place when he desired the wife of his adopted son.) Addendum #4: Muhammed can marry more than 4 women. (He claimed he did so for tribal alliances.)
Today there are thousands of women in Muslim countries that believe with every fiber of their being that this is what Allah wants. Muslims aren't the only ones to blindly follow. Most have not bothered to examine the etiology of their faiths. If so, they would see how the faith was twisted by men to keep women in place (and other surprising facts to know and tell.)
(By the way, just so the reader knows I am not trying to single out a particular culture or the Islamic faith, Christian-led England did not allow women to own property until the mid-1800s. Muhammad advocated this right for women in the 7th century. During the rise of the Greek city states in the 8th century BCE, everybody could become a citizen except slaves and women. These were aggressively male states. During the preceeding Dark Age, women had enjoyed a better status but during this new age they were marginalized, segregated in their family homes and rarely seen in the streets. So the Muslims were not the first to sequester women. Islam borrowed many of it current abhorrent practices from surrounding cultures.)
Islam does not stand alone in its religious injustice. Preachers of Christianity have been equally unjust. (John Calvin quickly comes to mind here.) There are two versions of the Creation story in the Bible: one that has God creating man and woman at the same time as equals and the other version proclaiming woman was created from the rib of man. Guess which one is usually preached from the pulpit? No wonder women feel subordinate to men. They have been taught this from childhood. If this is the premise one starts with then man can use the "logic" that woman is a helpmate to man. In logic, the premise must be true for other truths to follow. If the premise is wrong, what follows cannot be true. Which version is the correct version if one believes that every word in the Bible is true?
It is human nature to resist giving up cherished beliefs. People rather persist in a belief than consider they may be wrong. Few people have the courage to admit they were wrong and to make a change. Change is one of the scariest things a person can do. True beliefs can withstand close examination and do not involve wishful thinking. If questioning shows a weakness in the argument, most would rather disparage the questioner than have to re-examine closely held beliefs. The Catholic Church put to death anyone who thought the world was round but one need not go back that far for an example. There are still people who believe that African-Americans are intellectually inferior to whites and will put you in a world of hurt if you argue too strongly against this.
Since I am interested in pursuing truth, my first litmus test is...is this true for everyone at anytime? If this system were just, then men would not mind if the tables were turned. They would undergo surgery to eradicate pleasure from the sexual act. They would be understanding when their wife took on extra husbands. They would obediently sit/walk behind their woman. They would not grumble for being paid less for the same work. They would not be bothered that, although they are half of the population, they only have marginal representation in government. They would not rebell against being disenfranchised from the vote. And they certainly buy in, at the deepest level, that they are less than.
The truth is....the woman's movement has stalled and women falsely believe that the fight is over. While the majority of the women in the world still suffer from true injustice the fight must continue. What is true is that it won't change if women do not become more vocal about it. The truth is women need to realize they are not the second sex and need to see themselves as powerful and worthy of respect across the board -- from the workplace to the bedroom.
If any reader wishes to challenge this post in any way, I welcome it. I do not profess to know everything and I am quite willing to change. I have made tremendous changes and been forced to examine my own closely held beliefs. If someone can show me that my belief about women's status is wrong, I actually would welcome it. What a tremendous relief that would be and I could feel comfortable about not only my daughters' future but the future of daughters everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)