Print

Print


You go, man!
P.


-----Original Message-----
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. on behalf of robert meyer
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 5:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TS Eliot: The Paradox of Simplicity - Language and Sin
 
This idea that 'men must rule over women' is contradicted in Genesis 21:12
(in the context of the family dispute between Sarah, the wife, and Hagar,
her slave) when God said to Abraham, "... whatever Sarah says to you,  DO 
AS  SHE  TELLS  YOU,  for through Isaac shall your descendants be named." -
and that is from the very same book of the Bible.  In the 4th and 5th
chapters of Judges, Deborah basically ruled over all of Israel as God's
spokeswoman.  Though it's not commonly taught, it's right there in black
and white for anyone to see.


The issue is more striking in the New Testament.  Even if one accepts the
idea that since Adam can rule Eve, men in general can rule over women in
general; that is only in the state of sin and therefore before redemption. 
After the crucifixion and resurrection, we are new creatures, equal parts
of the one "Body of Christ"; so if any man still wants to rule over a
woman, he is still clinging to the state of sin and rejecting God.  Much
has been made over passages like I Timothy 2:11-15 for supporting sexism,
but a closer reading of it reveals something different. In the context of
both Jewish and Pagan societies in the early first century where almost all
women were illiterate, Paul instead says "A woman should learn" (verse 11).
The phrase "I permit no woman to teach" (verse 12) is only a temporary
condition imposed on women until they can be fully taught. This idea that
women can and should teach men is shown when Priscilla taught Apollos in
Acts 18:26.  The fact that Paul knew both Priscilla and Apollos and never
criticized either of them, and Paul was always quick to criticize anybody
he thought was in the wrong, means he was in favor of women teaching men if
the women know more than the men.


Robert Meyer


> [Original Message]
> From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 11/1/2007 12:01:10 PM
> Subject: Re: TS Eliot: The Paradox of Simplicity - Language and Sin
>
> It is pretty vengeful to punish all women for all time because one of
them disobeyed first and pretty cruel to make it eternal subordination. 
And as I said, Adam may well be as clueless and punished as Eve, but he
still gets to rule.  And if you ever met a man who would prefer that women
rule them privately and in all public arenas and prevent them from being
educated and deny them the vote or any participation in governing and
require them to limit themselves to one only way of living and accept
beatings from them if they fail to please, let me know.
>
> What is confusing about that?
> Nancy
>
> >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 11/1/2007 4:37 AM >>>
> From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > [This is the beginning of the direct assertion of male control.  So the
> authors who wrote it down imagined a vengeful and rather pointlessly
> cruel god who created an eternal system of subjection because Eve
> did it first.]
> ============================================
> How is He vengeful and pointlessly cruel when He warned
>  them not to eat of the tree?
>
> Adam's punishment it would seem, is to have to rule over
> Eve (and work) Doesn't look like he had much choice in
> the matter, either.
>
> P.