By now I have realized that approaching an essay from our modern viewpoint is useless in analyzing its legitamacy. For people who take the word of the old testament as the word of god, there is no getting around the fact that the bible supports male superiority. Every argument we have seen so far that espouses equality of the sexes has left out crucial passages saying otherwise, as if they were hoping they would dissapear if not dealt with. Foh's approach to Genesis allows her to make use of the entire text, and play both sides of the equality fence. The backbone of her argument requires grouping the two creations as creations of different spheres of life. The first creation describes ontological equality, while the second describes the "god given roles" (E&A 389) of male and female with regards to church and marriage only. Apparently there was just too much to say about men and women for there to be only one creation, so naturally there are two to make sure all the bases are covered.
We've seen many ways to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2, including blunt denial and claims of different authorship, but this is by far the most unique. Foh, in most her interpretation, mostly stays close to the text and doesnt take much liberty. However, the one gigantic liberty her argument rests on is that creation in genesis 2 is limited to the church and home, and creation in Genesis 1 is limited to ontological equality. These divisions are not made in the text. Yes, there are different tones in the two stories, but this is because they are. . . two separate stories.
Aside from this flaw, Foh is pretty tasteful in how she portrays female subjection. She covers the blunt words subjection and authority with more neutral words such as "difference in function" and "sinless heirarchy." Some of her evidence for male superiority is clearly supported in the text, such as the naming argument. It is clear that Adam was exhibiting dominion over the world's animals by naming them. Why then, should the naming of woman be any different; she is after all just another "attempted partner" for Adam that happens to be successful.
Foh's stance on the Fall is a bit confusing. She claims that the fall upsets the balance of the "sinless heirarchy" of which the woman is happy "helping" the man. She then recalls the punishment of the woman desiring the husband, and the move to his more harsh rule over her. Then, she counters this by saying that "many wives have no desire -sexual, psychological or otherwise- for their husbands" (E&A 393). Was god's prediction of male-female relationship wrong? Nevertheless, Foh favors a return to the pre-Fall relationship of man and woman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very neat observation on the use of language to temper her claims.
"Some of her evidence for male superiority is clearly supported in the text, such as the naming argument."
"Clearly"? I have never felt that naming has to do with authority, somehow it just seems a stretch. Does naming a newly-discovered star express authority? And to use this to explain the naming episode in Gen 2 seems woefully inadequate. The real question is why God started the whole business with the other animals at all and didn't just cut to the chase. The argument Foh (and many others) gives, seems to go: Adam named the animals, asserting his authority over them, so when he gets to naming the woman it's the same thing, as though it's a syllogism or perfect analogy. Whereas it's the failure of the animals' name and the success of the woman's (and remember he doesn't name her in the standard sense of a personal name, but a gender/species name) that makes all the difference. Let's discuss this in class.
You don't do justice to the novelty of Foh's interpretation of Gen 3:16, a nice touch of realism there. She questions the by now standard view and attempts to relate the "woman's desire" to the "man's rule" accordingly. We'll have to see if it's convincing.
Post a Comment