When our beliefs do not produce what we want in the real world, we resort to scapegoating, or just flat-out lying. Feminism is one of those perfect scapegoats for patriarchy that is so lied about that you would think there is more to it than just an attempt to equalize the worth of men and women.
Patriarchy works for some, but not even for the some all the time. When patriarchy doesn't produce the perfect marriages, the perfect children, and a perfect world, the first logical thing is to find the reason for the failure. And so feminism became the modern scapegoat, for it insists that patriarchy is wrong, and that it hurts women and children, and ultimately even men.
But as those who believe in patriarchy try to pass the blame on feminism, the first challenge they face is that cannot prove that it has ever produced perfect marriages, perfect children, or a perfect world, whereas feminism can show that it has improved the lot of women and children, and even some men.
Since patriarchy cannot use facts, it must resort to flat-out lying. And so we are told by Pat Robertson that, "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." In other words, if women aren't kept subservient by patriarchy, they will kill their offspring in order to marry their neighbor's wife.
Mr. Robertson can say such things despite the fact that feminism has improved the treatment of children by society at large, and no one has yet seen a full-scale massacre of infants, because those who believe in patriarchy desperately need any justification for their beliefs, even if it means they have to believe stories they know are lies.
In the church, things get even murkier, for here we have the Bible. Anyone can produce proof using the Bible, especially when verses are plucked randomly like feathers from a chicken. The common way of approaching the subject of patriarchy is to claim that feminism infiltrated the church in the 1970s. But here's the problem: in the 70s, theologians finally challenged the notoriously difficult two-fold subjection created by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. As a result, and by common consensus, theologians dropped the subjection that began after the fall and kept the subjection that began at creation, effectively reversing the 4th century theology that dominated for nearly a thousand years, until Thomas came along. Some theologians, however, challenged this new position by pointing out that the first centuries had believed in equality from creation, and patriarchy as a consequence of sin. What some call infiltration is what others call sound scholarship, and who is afraid of the truth?
If patriarchy cannot defend itself, and must use faith and fear to keep itself going, is it really worth it? It maybe for some, but not for most of us; fear kills joy, and faith works only if it is based on truth. Few want to feel schizophrenic, saying one thing, feeling another, until their whole reality spins. If we must get rid of patriarchy in order to remain sane, I'd say it's a small price to pay.
The next to last paragraph is difficult for me to understand. Specifically:
ReplyDelete"But here's the problem: in the 70s, theologians finally challenged the notoriously difficult two-fold subjection created by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. As a result, and by common consensus, theologians dropped the subjection that began after the fall and kept the subjection that began at creation, effectively reversing the 4th century theology that dominated for nearly a thousand years, until Thomas came along. Some theologians, however, challenged this new position by pointing out that the first centuries had believed in equality from creation, and patriarchy as a consequence of sin."
So there was a "two-fold subjection" started by Aquinas in the 13th century. This was challenged in the 1970s, apparently by theologians who dropped the Gen 3:16 subjection, but maintained one that began at creation? But there was no subjection that began at creation. (as the other theologians to whom you refer point out.)
I'm confused!
Wow, how interesting. I found the answer in something else you wrote on another blog, and quite by accident!
ReplyDeletehttp://keepingthegood.blogspot.com/2011/09/thomas-aquinas-and-twofold-subjection.html
Hi Greg! Church history, as far was women are concerned, is one of many changes, both deliberate and accidental. Often one change leads to another, and in the case of the two-fold subjection, it was the changes made in the first four centuries that causes the first step: subjection as a result of sin, which led Jerome to change Genesis 3:16 in the Latin Vulgate. When this one verse was changed from a consequence into a commandment, later centuries believed God had subjected all women to men as a result of Eve's sin. In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas had to answer the question why the woman was created before sin, since her subjection began after sin (in other words, why did God create her to be the man's equal), and he concluded that the man was wiser, wherefore he had to lead, this being God's ideal from creation. Because the Bible doesn't mention this, Thomas used Aristotle's philosophy to argue that the woman is a misbegotten male, wherefore she lacks the man's reason. The church taught this as God's truth for 700 years, until the two-fold subjection was challenged in 1970s and here we are arguing whether God subjected the woman from creation or not. A simple glance into the first 12 centuries tells us that the answer is a resounding "no."
ReplyDelete