wlotus | Biblical Ponderings

To the woman [God] said, “...Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
~Genesis 3:16b, NKJV

In the later years of my identification as an evangelical Christian, I understood this account of God's word to Eve after Adam and she sinned to be a warning: God was warning Eve that because they were no longer sinless, men would oppress women, rather than women and men living and ruling the earth (not each other) as complete equals as Eve and Adam had done up to that point (Genesis 1:27-30). But it was only this afternoon that I realized God made no mention to Adam of a backlash against men because of the way they had oppressed women. It couldn't be because God (as the writer of this account knew God) did not know; according to the Bible, God knows everything. So was that part of God's word left out by the writers (or later editors), who were products of their misogynistic culture? Or, perhaps, did God not say anything to Adam about the inevitable backlash, because he knew Adam's sinful state would not allow him to hear and understand the danger of giving in to that sinful desire to rule over women?

Discuss.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

More and more women are fighting back against men's oppression. They are getting educated, sometimes in secret and against their fathers' and husbands' edicts.

I don't think women fighting for their rights constitutes a "backlash" against men. To me, a backlash against men would have to be something directed at men, not something women are doing for themselves. Also, many men are fighting against oppression and mistreatment of women, and I don't really think they're participating in a backlash against themselves.

They are leaving abusive husbands.

To me, this has nothing to do with any kind of "backlash," because they're individual decisions. Most men do no abuse their wives, and cultures wherein violence against women is more accepted, women themselves tend to support and justify it.

Some women are choosing lives where men are dealt with only as necessary, but are not part of the woman's inner circle of friends, and some of them are clear they are making that choice because of the male ego and men's oppression of women.

While to me, this is not a backlash, I can see how one could argue it was. However, this kind of thing doesn't make the slightest impact on men, and women who lump all men together as egotists and oppressors are fools. Being whiny, bitter and shrill isn't likely to foster equality- on the contrary. Women who behave this way are more likely to be dismissed as misandrists, and in my opinion, they should be.

Just because a woman chooses to live her life without male influence other than what is absolutely necessary--doing business, for example--does not make her "whiny, bitter and shrill". Some women who make that choice are. Some are not.

I would argue that anyone who classifies every women who makes that choice as "whiny, bitter, and shrill" is taking an oppressive viewpoint of those women. I can see disagreeing with their choice, but calling them names because of it is overstepping the line.

I would argue that anyone who classifies every women who makes that choice as "whiny, bitter, and shrill" is taking an oppressive viewpoint of those women.

I'm not talking about every woman who makes that choice. I am specifically talking about the women who make that choice "because of the male ego and men's oppression of women." This presupposes all men are egotistic oppressors, which is patently untrue, and I stand by my statement that such women are whiny, bitter, shrill misandrists and will add that I do not think these women give a damn about other women.

Biblical Ponderings

no subject

Harsh Choice of Words

Re: Harsh Choice of Words