"How many of you dad's read this story with me and freak out?"
"If your single you don't understand women"
I hadn't originally planned for this blog. But there was too much problematic stuff about what it means to be a parent last Sunday. I almost don't know where to start.
I've always found it fascinating that Mordachi is so widely believed to be Esther's uncle. Go check out the passage. He's Esther's cousin, not that it matters that much he is clearly her adoptive parent. I just wonder where and why the misconception arouse and does it have anything to do with the need to fit Mordachi and Esther into a 'father leader'/'obedient daughter' model. There was a great piece about the mutuality in the relationship between Mordachi and Esther here at CBE.
I wanted to avoid commenting too directly on the content of what Mark Driscoll said in his preaching series but I think on this subject it is unavoidable. The problem I have with a lot of his rhetoric is that he tells people how they should feel and leaves no room in his construct for a diversity of life experience and emotional response. He very directly told single men that they would have no ability to understand what was problematic about young women being gathered into a hareem only Dad's could possibly understand. So single men are incapable of empathy or sexual integrity.
Dad's however are capable of and overflowing with murderous rage. Anger the only other emotion men are allowed to feel besides lust in these 'masculinity' constructs, is how fathers will respond, no complexity of emotion allowed just plain rage. And Fathers only - mothers are not mentioned at all despite the biblical text comparing God's protective love to that of a mother bear.
And the rage is not a response to violence and oppression of a dearly loved human being - but an anger at another man taking what belongs to you. As demonstrated by Mr Driscoll's possessive advice about what men should do if their daughters are dating men they don't like. They apparently have the right to dump them. All the while no mention of mothers or sons.
Mordachi should have just plain said no. Now while I don't disagree that it would be great if the people of Persia as individuals or a collective had resisted this oppression, I also assume that Mordachi didn't or perceived he didn't have a choice. But this doesn't fit Driscoll's paradigm of what it means to be a man, nor does it fit his agenda of policing men's behavior and sense of identity.
He appeals to the case of Adam our 'first father' (is he ever referenced as such in the bible?) who's sin was apparently a sin of omission, that he did nothing (funny I thought he took and ate!) in the same way he argues Mordachi didn't prevent Esther from going to the palace and failed as a father.
Through the whole thing he set up a paradigm of women as the property of men, particularly their fathers. It is the model of the punitive, controlling father rather than what I believe to be far more biblical: the nurturing parent.
While he's berating Xerxes for acting as god he wants fathers to extract complete obedience from their families.
Coming soon: Sexual Politics of Esther: Sexual violence
"If your single you don't understand women"
I hadn't originally planned for this blog. But there was too much problematic stuff about what it means to be a parent last Sunday. I almost don't know where to start.
I've always found it fascinating that Mordachi is so widely believed to be Esther's uncle. Go check out the passage. He's Esther's cousin, not that it matters that much he is clearly her adoptive parent. I just wonder where and why the misconception arouse and does it have anything to do with the need to fit Mordachi and Esther into a 'father leader'/'obedient daughter' model. There was a great piece about the mutuality in the relationship between Mordachi and Esther here at CBE.
I wanted to avoid commenting too directly on the content of what Mark Driscoll said in his preaching series but I think on this subject it is unavoidable. The problem I have with a lot of his rhetoric is that he tells people how they should feel and leaves no room in his construct for a diversity of life experience and emotional response. He very directly told single men that they would have no ability to understand what was problematic about young women being gathered into a hareem only Dad's could possibly understand. So single men are incapable of empathy or sexual integrity.
Dad's however are capable of and overflowing with murderous rage. Anger the only other emotion men are allowed to feel besides lust in these 'masculinity' constructs, is how fathers will respond, no complexity of emotion allowed just plain rage. And Fathers only - mothers are not mentioned at all despite the biblical text comparing God's protective love to that of a mother bear.
And the rage is not a response to violence and oppression of a dearly loved human being - but an anger at another man taking what belongs to you. As demonstrated by Mr Driscoll's possessive advice about what men should do if their daughters are dating men they don't like. They apparently have the right to dump them. All the while no mention of mothers or sons.
Mordachi should have just plain said no. Now while I don't disagree that it would be great if the people of Persia as individuals or a collective had resisted this oppression, I also assume that Mordachi didn't or perceived he didn't have a choice. But this doesn't fit Driscoll's paradigm of what it means to be a man, nor does it fit his agenda of policing men's behavior and sense of identity.
He appeals to the case of Adam our 'first father' (is he ever referenced as such in the bible?) who's sin was apparently a sin of omission, that he did nothing (funny I thought he took and ate!) in the same way he argues Mordachi didn't prevent Esther from going to the palace and failed as a father.
Through the whole thing he set up a paradigm of women as the property of men, particularly their fathers. It is the model of the punitive, controlling father rather than what I believe to be far more biblical: the nurturing parent.
While he's berating Xerxes for acting as god he wants fathers to extract complete obedience from their families.
Coming soon: Sexual Politics of Esther: Sexual violence
No comments:
Post a Comment