304 Christian Manthi Pemin Theory Mary S. Van La 304 continue to stay in churches whose male leaders pride themselves in follow- ing "correct biblical practices with regard to relations between the sexes Perhaps the simplest way to define the politics of radical feminism is to note its main point of departure from Marxist feminism. Radical feminists aecuse Marsit feminists of a profound naivete in reducing women's oppres- sion to class oppression. To them, the basic dividing line is not between cap. italist and worker (whether male or female worker), but rather between men as a sexual class and women as a sexual class. Thus, patriarchy, not capital- ism, is the root problem of human society one which predates capitalism and one which, moreover, would not be erased by the coming of any socialist utopia Radical feminists, like their Marxisr sisters, lean heavily on a secularized reading of the fall. This time, however, original sin is seen not in terms of class oppression, but rather as the patriarchal oppression of women by men. Women with religious leanings who become radical feminists usually reject both the materialism and the economic reductionism of Marxism. But their perception of the nonmaterial, spiritual realm often includes some very dis- torted theology by the standards of orthodox Christianity. Not only does this theology tend to see sexism as the original sin; it also tends to see women as the "new creation"--at worst more sinned against than sinning, at best on their way to rediscovering within themselves the powers of the ancient, pagan female goddesses who, it is held, were worshipped for millennia before men seized social, familial, and religious control (Christ, 1979; Daly, 1973, Reuther, 1983). All of this may sound very bizarre-indeed, almost demonic-to most Christians. But let us again ask ourselves whether we have an important les- son to relearn from the radical feminists. Christian sirpply cannot deny that the fall has distorted relationships between the sees. To be sure, the original sin was not sexism; it was the desire of both sexes to be independent of God. Bur sexism was surely one of the more serious consequences of the fall. To read Genesis 3:16 ("Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you") as either a part of the creation order, as a desirable prescription for postfall life is bad exegesis At the same time, it would be difficult for Christian counselors to deny that women often use their position of relative weakness to their advantage in ways which are immature as well as sinful. Many are capable of exhibiting passive aggression as well as calculated helplessness. Many can fight very effectively with words even when they cannot do so with their fists. Some are to pass on their ill treatment at the hands of men in the forn of unhealthy power relationships with their children. More subtly, women can also become so concerned about preserving existing relationships that their personal morplity gets reduced to whatever will please or placate the significant others in their lives. Harvard University's Carol Gilligan (1982) has perceptively demonstrated this in her study of the decision-making pro cess women go through when contemplating an abortion: whether they finally opted to haye or to abort the child, most of her respondents made their decision according to what they thought someone else (the lover, the par- ents, etc.) wanted them to do, hoping thereby to regain the status quo in that particular relationship and avoid facing the perils of a more autonomous life Significantly was pnly when those relationships dissolved regardless of cal culated efforts to secure them that these women were able, in retrospect, to use the tragedy of the unplanned pregnancy to asume greater responsibility for their own lives So while it is probably true that more obvious damage has been done to women than men as a result of fallen relationships between the sexes, women are by no means more sinned against than sinning to say otherwise is to embrace a profound heresy regarding the corporate need of all human beings for repentance and salvation. Thus we have both a positive and a negative lesson to learn from radical feminism abqut human maturity: positively, we must credit them with reminding us that the brokenness of relationships between the sexes is no trivial, passing thing, and that overcoming it involves patient, hard, never- completed work on the part of both men and women. Negatively, however, we are reminded to be wary of a feminist triumphalism that underrates the sinfulness of half the human race, and sometimes embraces idolatry to the point of resurrecting ancient, pagan goddens culs. Postradical or "Differentiating" Feminism More recently a growing number of feminists have begun to say, in effect, "Why should we accept the stereotyped male profile of maturity as the normative one? What's so great about aggressiveness, or independence, or overweening personal ambition, or the repression of emotion?" If we return to the Broverman et al. studies on sex-role stereotypes, we find that there was a list of female-positive traits endorsed by men and women, professional and lay persons alike. Granted, it was less than half the length of the male list, but its contents were very suggestive. These socially desirable female traits included tactfulness, gentleness, empathy, quietness, greater interest in reli- gion, art and literature, and the capacity to express tenderness easily. And while the origins and motivations of this research are largely secular, it does not take a great deal of biblical literacy to note that the female-positive list of traits has more in common than the male list with the fruits of the spirit described in the New Testament. Thus there is a growing group of "post-radical" feminists who seem to be saying this: women are indeed different from men; those differences may well, for all we know, result from a complex blend of nature, nurture, and free more than able to 306 Mary Strmart Van Lee Christian Manurity in the Port Theory 307 want a mate, and she gets a master; she wants a lover and she gets a lord; she wants a husband and the gets a hierarchy. (pp. 55, 229, see also Trible, 1978) choice. But whatever their origin, they are important in their own right, and must be restudied and reinterpreted by women working on their own theo retical terms, and not according to terms laid down by a male-dominated psychology which either recasts sex differences as deficits on the part of women, or assumes that maturity in either sex means acting in a stereotypi- cally male fashion. Far from advocating androgyny, these post-radical femi- nists (elsewhere [Van Leeuwen, 1986] I have also called them "differentiat- ing" feminists) plead for a more nuanced understanding of both maturity and immaturity which takes the differential life experiences of men and women seriously without ranking them in terms of moral superiority (Gilligan, 1982; Hewlett, 1986; Keller, 1985; Lloyd, 1984; Miller, 1976; Schaef, 1981; Turkle, 1984), I pointed out earlier in this article that the majority of conservative Chris- tians reject contemporary feminism without making the effort to understand its various expressions, while a sizable minority endorse a qualified version of liberal or "androgynous" feminism. So far, neither group has paid suffi- cient attention to the emerging work of postradical or "differentiating" fem- inists. Yet I consider this work to be important for both groups, because its basic theoretical orientation is compatible with the confession that male and female are somehow creationally distinct (something which conservative Christians are rightly anxious to retain) and also with the confession that both women and men share the image of God and the cultural mandate, with neither r being more or less fallen than the other (something which many other Christians are just as rightly anxious to stress).... Let me confess that, as a psychologist, I have nursed an ongoing compul- sion, dating back almost 15 years, to understand as fully as possible the meaning and implications of Genesis 3:16. That is the verse in which God, announcing the consequences of the fall, says to Eve that despite the suffer- ing that will accompany the birth of children to her marriage, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Now, the first thing that emerges when one tries to exegete this mysterious verse is that the Hebrew word translated as "desire" occurs only three times in the Old Tes- tament--and this, of course, make the business of understanding its intent somewhat difficult. But when biblical scholars compare the Hebrew uses and contents of this word, most conclude that the verse is referring to an unreciprocated longing for intimacy. Gilbert Bilezikian's (1985) words, Now let us clarify what is not being said here. It is not the case that the positive, mutual interdependence intended between men and women at cre- ation has totally disappeared. Creation, common grace, and redemption have mercifully assured that this will not be so. Nor is it the case that being a "master," a "lord," or a "hierarchy" is totally against the creation order The human abuse of power is possible only because, in the first instance, human beings were created in God's image and given the freedom to exer- cise accountable dominion over the creation. But what I take God to be say ing, in Genesis 3:16, is that as a result of the fall, there will be a propensity in man to let dominn ut wild-to impose it in cavalier and illegitimate ways not only upon the earth and upon other men (remember Cain's murder of Abel, the fifst act of warfare), but also upon the person who is "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh- the helper corresponding to his very self" (Gen. 2:18, 23-paraphrased). Now if this were all I had to say about this text, my audience would have every right to be uneasy. For is this not saying, in effect, Just what some rad- ical feminists say-that men are constantly being heavy-handed with women, while the women always respond with self-sacrificing patience and turn the other check to the point of death? Is this not, in effect, saying that sexism on the part of males is the original sin, and that women are the new creation, exhibiting the fruits of the spirit long before Paul identified thern as the marks of redeemed Christian (Gal. 5:22-23)? Well, no-because, you see, we have not yet finished exegeting the implications of Genesis 3:16. For this is a verse that I suspect is really being quite even-handed in its pre- diction of sinfulness in both sexes. Let me explain why. We are agreed, I think, that accountable dominion is part of the image of God in both sexes; we are agreed also, I suspect, that men and women were intended from the beginning to be mutually interdependent. Trinitarian the ology tells us that right from the beginning, God was a unified plurality of persons; that is presumably why he said, "Let us make humankind in our own image," an image which includes, as well as accountable dominion, an 7 inherent sociability. Thus Christians, unlike the philosopher Thomas Hob- d bes (1651/1962), can never say that people are inevitable individualists who se grudgingly enter into a social contract with others merely in order to advance o their own private interests. On the contrary, we are so unshakably created ct for community that we cannot even become full persons unless we grow up in in nurturing contact with others. And so, just as there is something creation- ully legitimate about the man's desire for dominion (even though it is mis- used against women) there is also something creationally right about the The woman's desire will be for her husband, so as to perpetuate the intimacy that had characterized their relationship in paradise lost But her nostalgia for the relation of love and mutuality that existed between them before the fall, when they both desired each other, will not be reciprocated by her husband Instead of meeting her desire. He will rule over her In short, the woman 295 thes fol sta nally sch oga tod eing che chy pro 309 Mary Van Lee woman's desire for complete union with a man and as a result, and despite the attendant pain) for the creation and inaintenance of a family But because of the fall, Genesis 3:16 seems to imply, this desire on the part of women for community is also distorted by sin. For there are two oppo. site ways persone can abuse their God-given exercise of accountable domin ion. The first (the man's sin) is to try to exercise dominion without regard to the creator's original intentions for human relationships. But the second- the peculiarly female sin-is to use the preservation of those relationships as an Excuse not to exercise accountable dominion in the first place. In other words, the tooman's congenital flaw in light of Genesis 3:16 is the temptation to avoid taking responsibility for anything outside the sphere of immediate, personal relationships. Now this is a very seductive temptation indeed, for it so easily masquerades us virtue. After all, do Christians not hold that self-sacrificing servanthood, and the desire to maintain peace and interpersonal unity, are essential fruits of the spirit? Well, yes and no, depending on the context. It women insist on peace at any price-if they settle for an abnormal quietism as a way of avoiding the risk and potential isolation that may come from opposing evil-then they are not exhibiting the fruit of the spirit; they are sin- ning just as surely as the man who rides roughhod over relationships in order to assert his individual freedom Of particular relevance is Koonz (1987), who shows how Nazi women used the basic misogyny of Nazism to carve ojt in separate (but never equal social sphere based on so-called women's concern. A large part of this con- sisted of the willing glorification of domesticity, thereby creating a refuge for the many male administrators of the extermination camps. The traditional "woman's touch" and the insular joys of Nazi kamily life actually helped pre- serve the "sanity" of mass murderers and enabled these men to continue their sordid work. In Koonx' words, "As fanatical Nazis or lukewarm tag- alongs, Nani women resolutely turned their heads away from assaults against socialists, Jews, religious dissenters, the handicapped, and 'degenerates! They gazed instead at their own cradles, children, and 'Aryan' families, Mothers and wives made a vital contribution to Nazi power by preserving the illusion of love in an environment of hatred, just as men sustained the image of order in the utter disarray of conflicting bureaucratic and military priorities and commands" (p. 17) Ar an even deeper level, it seems that the effects of Genesis 3.16 reflect the peculiar way in which each party sinned in the garden. The man and woman were equally created for both sociability and dominion or for affiliation and achievement to use the more common psychological terms). But in reaching our to take the fruit, the woman overstepped the hounds of dominion; as a consequence, the obtained a distorted concern for sociability which contin ues to hamper the proper exercise of her talents in the world at large. By con trust the man, in accepting the fruit from his wife, overstapped the bounds of Crina Martin Lipa The 300 human social unity, as a consequence, le obtained a distorted sense of dominion, Which has been playing havoc with his social relationships ever since. In cash card, the punishment seems to fit the original crime. References Bilezikian, G 1985 Beyond lex rol: A pade for the study of female roles in the Bible Grand Rapids Baker Broverman, IK, Broverman, D. M. Clarkson, F. R., Rosenkrantz, P. S., and Vogel, S. R. 1970. Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of metal Beach Journal Comhalting Prychology 34:1-7 Broverman, Kogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M. Clarkson, F., and Rosto krantz, s. 72. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal Journal of Social Joe 24. 2: 58-78 Christ, C. 1979. wymatini ring: 4 feminitrader in religion. New York: Harper & Row Clarkson, FE, Vogel, S, R, Broverman, IK, Broveeman, DM, and Rose- krant, P. S. 1970. Family site and sex role stereotypes. Saime 54:37-45 Coan, R. W. 1977. Hero, artist, sage, or saine New York Columbia University Press Daly, M. 1973. Beyond God and the father. Boston: Beacon Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different tice: Pychological theory and somen's devlopment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Grady, K F. 1980. Sex bias in research design. Psychology of Women Quarterly 345-62 Hewlett, S. 1986. A letter life: The myth of women's liberation America. New York Morrow Hobbes, T. 1962. Leviathan New York: Collier (Original work published 1651) Jagger, A. 1983. Feminit polinct and luman nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allen- held Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Keller, 1. F. 1985. Reflections on gender and serience. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univer sity Press. Koon, C. 1987. Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the family, and Nari polinics. New York St. Martin't. Lloyd, G. 1984. The man of reason: "Male" and "female" in Western philosophy, Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press Maslow, A. 1968. Towards a paychology of being, Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Miller, J.B. 1976. Tonards a new psychology of tome. Boston: Beacon, Reuther, R R 1983. Serum and God tall. Boston: Beacon Richey, R, and Jones, D. 1974. American civil religion. New York: Harper & Row, Schael, A. W. 1981. Woment's reality: An emergine fornale system in a white male society New York: Harper & Row. Schwabacher, S. 1972. Male versus female representation in paychological research: An examination of the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology." SAS Catalog Selected Documents in Prychology 2:20-21 es ge Эr Sil w Te se m 1 5 I 1
Purchase answer to see full attachment