Saturday, October 20, 2012
Maybe: A Thought on the Suppression of Women
While reading the context section of "The Place of Women in Society", I was struck by a thought. That maybe the reason women were so suppressed for so long is because men were, on some level, afraid of them. Going back to the Bible, (and excuse me if I get any of this wrong, I am not very educated about the Bible) I believe the whole thing with Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit involved Eve being convinced to eat the fruit and then convincing Adam to eat it as well. So going off of this, maybe men were afraid that if Eve could convince Adam to do something that they were specifically told not to do by God, that something just as awful could happen again with women convincing men to do something. So they're only solution was to make women think they could not make an active decision (like Eve did when eating the fruit first) so that they could avoid making such a mistake again. In the first excerpt by Sarah Stickney Ellis "The Daughters of England: Their Position in Society, Characters and Responsibilities" she goes on and on about how wonderful it is to be a woman in the household. Every time she describes a women's role, it is a passive one. Ellis talks about how women are able to exert such an influence over men. She explains this more, but it is always about a woman being able to influence a decision, but never actively decide. Then in the next excerpt "Hints on the Modern Governess System" by the Anonymous author, he or she mentions the Adam and Eve scene, and says, "Thenceforth, man wreaked his vengeance upon woman, for the loss of ease and plenty, by keeping her ignorant, and, consequently, helpless"(606). This supports my point for why women were suppressed. And since that's all they knew, of course many women such as Ellis would believe that the rightful place for a woman was an inferior position in the household and be against women having any rights. But what Ellis doesn't realize, is that the reason she believes that is all so lovely is only because men want her and all women to think that. Because if women think that their ultimate, best place is an inferior one, then men will never have to worry about a repeat of what happened with Adam and Eve and the Forbidden Fruit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post makes some good points, thank you for making it! I just had a thought to add about the use of Genesis 3 as a justification for men dominating women. The anthology says that one of the common Victorian arguments against gender equality was that of "divine will", which "portrayed female inferiority as part of the natural order established by God in Genesis" (603). This argument has certainly been used a lot throughout history. However, it is, in my opinion, terrible exegesis.
ReplyDeleteThe verse being referenced in the argument is Gen 3:16, where God says to the woman, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." If you read the context of this statement, you will realize that God is actually describing the negative consequences that will result from Adam and Eve's decision to live outside of God's design. So the husband's rule over the woman is listed as a NEGATIVE thing -- NOT God's eternal ideal!
(Side note: "your desire will be for your husband" is usually understood to mean that the woman will try to control the man; it's not sexual)
I think this illustrates a larger point, and one which I think you're trying to make: the arguments put forth for the subjugation of women are not the actual reason for that state of things. They are simply excuses for people to do what they already want to do; they're just a means for people who want power over others.
Hope that wasn't too boring. Thanks again for the thought-provoking post!
Thanks for that reading of the Genesis story -- I hadn't made that distinction about the "husband's rule"!
DeleteJoel brings up many excellent points which I would like to add to as well. Such sentiments certainly do indulge more a personal justification for behaving badly then actual legitimate reasons. In many ways it demonstrates the double edge nature of religious arguments; be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or so on. On one hand you find morals and elements that even within secular circles are deemed as good; love, charity, kindness, restraint from rash action, and empathy. Generally these can all be quantified under a greater definition of the first, love. Controversies such as what arises in the issue at hand; suppression of the 'other' in society in this case women; ultimately can be traced to an undermining of the basic notions of love. What makes such behavior wrong is that it treats its target as inferior, it fails to take into account their own feelings and needs, and indulges sensibilities more often deemed to be vices in pride and greed. In short, those who suppress are putting themselves before others, which in the context of Victorian England would smack in the face of many other arguments offered by the Christian faith, and in a markedly more direct manner then the feeble justifications offered otherwise.
ReplyDelete