Two Books on Women

 

I recently read 'How to be a Woman' by Caitlin Moran followed fairly immediately by 'A year of Biblical Womanhood' by Rachel Held Evans. I'm glad I read them this way round! It struck me that there were some interesting differences and notable contrasts that I wanted to share with the world.

I think I might start backwards. Both authors conclude that there is not and shouldn't be a prescribed way to be a woman. For Evans book this felt like the natural conclusion to her discussion. I felt the narrative learnt from the experience of other women from a diversity of cultural experiences and approached such learning with a humble heart. Yet it stayed authentically itself and gave me as the reader permission to do so as well.

Moran's book however irritated me most of the way through. It was essentially an autobiography but despite it's beginning and conclusion about the diversity of female experience I couldn't help but feel I was being told that this was or should have been my experience as well. Especially the stuff around adolescents. 

Both books reference other women who have fought similar battles before and have begun to forge a way and in who's path we follow as well as contemporaries. Evan's does so with great respect and gratitude to those 'Women of Valour' both past and present. One of her final resolutions is to identify and praise women of valor. 

Moran by contrasts dismisses most of her contemporaries, including Object and even Greer as having become irrelevant.  The only woman who comes of relatively well is Lady Gaga.  While Evans writing humbly acknowledge's the work of those who have gone before. Moran writes 'When Simone de Beauvoir wrote one is note born a woman one becomes a woman - she didn't know the half of it.' Hmm.

Moran repeatedly says that woman have done very little (even nothing) over the last 100,000 years, while men she claims have made great achievements in science, art politics and repeatedly in her long lists she includes empire. I find it very problematic to list empire in with a list of great advancements without any deconstruction or critique of the very idea of empire. Evan's by contrast retells the stories of many great women's achievement both biblical and extra biblical. She also on occasion broadens her critique not just to hierarchy between genders but the idea of hierarchy at all in any context.

Both repeatedly use the word 'Lady'. I have written about my dislike of the word here. Evans however only ever used it in contexts where, had she been talking about men she may well have said gentlemen. Generally when she was talking about people and only once directed to the readers. Moran however got right up my noise by continually giving instructions to her readers preceded by calling them to attention with 'Ladies!'. 

Both authors while not writing a book about violence against women and the global situation do reference it. Evans to put her own struggles and difficulties in perspective. Moran to explain that the problem with modern feminism is that it is focused on these things while ignoring things like glossy magazines and pants being too small.

Both authors once mention the Vietnam war, both use it for illustrative purposes. In the case of both books I have forgotten what was being described! Evan's I remember said that some group of people discussed something - "Like veterans talk about 'Nam" I can't remember feeling it was inappropriate or offensive. I cannot remember the details of what Moran was talking about either save that it was about running away "faster than a Vietnamese boy covered in Nepalm". I wasn't expecting that sentence it kind of sprang at me from no where and made me feel positively sick.

Both authors discussed having children. Evan's wrote an honest and reflective account of her worries and fears about having children. She also explored issues around women's relationship with parenting and the difficulty of living in a world which defines women in relation to children and explored the duff theology in parenting as a woman's highest calling. Moran on the other hand wrote 'Childbirth gives women a gigantic set of balls'. To be fair on Moran this is not all she said and she did also point out that there are a variety of life experiences that can change and shape us. But it's almost that that makes these bizar one lines so problematic there is an inconsistency in her writing.

Both authors mention their vagina's. Evans in a discussion about teenage experience of church teaching on sex.  Famously there was big discussions about how that would affect christian bookshops and whether they were willing to stock the book or not. As far as I am aware there where no such discussions as to the inclusion of the c word which I can't even bring myself to write, but that's apparently what Moran calls her vagina.

Both books made me laugh out loud. Moran's book also made me shout and swear. Evan's book also made me cry. Moran's book left me with an overwhelming sense of frustration. Evan's book left me peaceful and wiser. 

Sexual Politics of Esther: Vashti

Can I suggest that 'Did Vashti do the right thing?' is not the relevant question. But it is a question that exposes the inconsistencies and internal errors of complementarianism. 

Is Vashti a rebellious and stubborn woman who should have submitted to her husband? Is she a heroic 'lady' who judges correctly when to disobey her husband.

Vashti throws up a problem for a patriarchal view of the world because while women are devoid of any autonomy, authority or power they are also held accountable for the behaviors of men, and there is an internal contradiction there. 

There has been a lot of comment on twitter about some of the mental gymnastics complementarians have to go through to match their practices with their theology. In the first sermon from Mars hill on Esther we were informed that the best commentary on Esther was written by a women. I struggle to understand how it is OK for her to write and a man to read this book when it would not be OK for her to speak the exact same words from a platform - or maybe it would if it were a 'lecture'.

One of the difficulties I have with the presentation of Esther we are currently getting is the need to enforce 'the prayer of salvation' on it. I prefer to read the book of Esther as first and foremost a history book rather than a gospel narrative. This way I can start from the place that Vashti did what she did and in her story seek what can I learn about the world and my God. 

So while as an egalitarian I don't need to ask if Vashti did the right thing complementarians are forced to ask. I have to say what was said last Sunday was not what I was expecting but it was still used as an argument to police women's behavior. 

The obey your husband - unless he's asking you to sin, as I have argued elsewhere, necessitates a very narrow view of sin, essentially restricting it to the ten commandments, as opposed to any situation in which you follow your own or someone else will other than God. (We were told 3 times women are instructed to obey their husbands despite it never ever ever saying that in scripture, even with the most literal view)

Informing women that they must say no to there husbands if he's leading them into sin, while simultaneously requiring them to have no language of no leaves them in a very anxious place. Whether Complementarians decide Vashti did the right thing or the wrong thing is kinda irrelevant because the interpretation still requires wives to figure out how to relate to their husbands rather than how to relate to God. 

So women if your husband pressurises you into wearing 'revealing clothing' or if you in any way give into any of their coercive behavior, it is entirely your fault for not sufficiently being the guardians of men's behavior. Oh but they are still in charge.

Vashti was put in a situation where she had to face potential sexual violence or defy the most powerful man in the world. I do not consider this free choice and consequently am more concerned about analysing the behaviors of those that put her in that situation than hers. 

Oh and we were also briefly informed that Xerxes shouldn't have been attempting to publicly shame his wife sexually.... interesting. 

Sexual Politics of Esther: Eunuchs

Sexual Violence is never funny. Never ever not ever. 

I was listening to Esther while doing the washing up ears all pricked to listen to the detail of Vashti's story when the word Eunuch suddenly hit me between the eye's and my stomach turned  as the full horror of that word settled. 

According to Wikapedia 'Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies.' So it is totally inappropriate to describe men as going to their mums and saying 'hey I got a job' or to describe their mum's reaction as disappointment because of lack of grandchildren.

Not only is castration an act of sexual violence but it is violence against children since it is performed on pre-pubescent. It is a grotesque  practise. And it just plain isn't funny. 

There are twelve eunucs named in the book of Esther. Twelve little boys who were grosley violated: Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar, Carkas Hegai, Shaashgaz, Hathach, Bigthana and Teresh.

I'm not one for reading loads into numbers in the bible but I do find it interesting that there are 12 named. 

These boys who grew up into men are not non-people. They are not as they where described last sunday 'men who used to have good lives' - they are men who live lives and it is for them to define whether they are good or not. The abuse they experienced did not stop them being human, one of the reasons I think the bible chooses to name them, while not bothering to name the 'princes'. 

Among the Achamenide Persians, of which Xerxes was one, political eunuchism was an established institution. Apparently a Eunuch was assumed to have less ties to the military and family and not be interested in establishing their own dynasty so could be trusted to give good advice and loyal service and could hold positions of significant "power".

Though clearly not the power of self determination, if they had a power to influence the king, they had it in the context of a loss of personal freedom, since they where essentially enslaved.  

The Eunucs are mentioned 11 times in the book of Esther. Esthers relationship to the Eunucs shifts dramatically between chapter 2 and 4. In chapter 2 the Eunuchs are described as being 'in charge' of 'the kings women' but by chapter 4 they are being described as 'her Eunuchs'. In most other verses they are described as the king's  so Esther's transition to Queen gives her derived power over the Eunics though I imagine it would be shaky and dependent on continued favour with the king.

Anyway the Eunuchs are in most places described as belonging to someone. They have become possessions. Eunuchs I guess where the ancient worlds answer to the question who will guard the women? It cannot be women because we cannot give them authority or power, nor can it be men because we cannot trust them not to be craving our own position of power and influence, and we cannot trust them not to rape and pillage, and any offspring must be ours. 

So we will violate a man so that he is able to serve our purposes because he is now a non-person and no longer a threat. 

Interestingly Xerxes assassination was assisted by a Eunuch - and we read about an attempt in the book of Esther also.

Not all men do that well in patriarchy.

There is so much stuff about masculinities floating around the Christian world, it breaks my heart to see gender non-conforming men being silenced as not Christian or "real men" because they don't like mountain climbing or whatever other way people have decided men NEED to demonstrate their masculinity. The kingdom of heaven turns everything on it's head. 

Isaiah 54:4-5 says:

For thus says the Lord,

“To the eunuchs who ^(C)keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And ^(D)hold fast My covenant,
 To them I will give in My ^(E)house and within My ^(F)walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give ^[a]them an everlasting ^(G)name which ^(H)will not be cut off.

Sexual Violence is never ok. And the fact that we find it funny, and don't even see it as violence when the victims of the crime are men is deeply disturbing and evidence of the ubiquitous patriarchy that surrounds us.