Microaggressions = 'the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.' Intersectionality = 'a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.' You're cis-female, so you can't actually be prejudiced about a lot of things because you aren't part of the oppressive institution (being a victim of the patriarchy, of course). That is, unless you're the one in power, you can't be sexist, racist, etc. You can, however, be transphobic, because it's rude, oppressive, and 'problematic' (everything is 'problematic') to consider trans-women (male-to-female) as anything other than actual women, and if you did then you would be celebrating your female privilege over-against others. But it's not your fault, because you've been brought up under an oppressive regime (unless we're talking about an actually oppressive regime, and then it's xenophobia and racism to point it out). In other words, modern feminism - at least what we're given through the (social) media - is insane (<- this is now a politically incorrect word, which is crazy <- this is also now a politically incorrect word).
Well...I don't use the word feminism, it is others who like to throw it out as something negative when the initial usage of the word was for what I stated, and was a good thing (IMO) If a man (or woman) wants to be specific when using the word feminism, it would make knowing where they are coming from a whole lot easier.
I - a straight while cis-male - must go prostrate myself before the alter of male white privilege in recompense for my... Oh hi, O'Brien, what's that? New words for the... Okay, yes, right...
I was born and raised without the restrictions that women had that were born 1 and 2 generations before me. I don't know anything different than having more freedoms as a woman than those who did not that lived before me. What is my normal was others abnormal. I strongly argue that Jesus removed the curse placed on women that man will rule over her...it has merely taken thousands of years for us humans to move upon this truth and accept it.
That was never the curse. A better translation (of the verse in Genesis 3 you're referring to) is that men and women would be in conflict with each other, not that the one (man) would rule over the other (woman), although both would try (the man to rule, and the wife to control?).
I disagree with your translation. IS not to rule to dominate? There is nothing that states the woman will try to control. It states that woman will desire her husband above all else and this makes sense because woman though bartered and traded had her life and only survival through a husband. Women dependent on man to live and have their being. She was made to be inferior to man by God as punishment for her sin. (Even though her value was equal, man would not treat her as such, he would rule as one that was superior to her) Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.
The word for desire in Genesis 3:16 is the same word for desire in Genesis 4:7. 16 To the woman He said,“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children;Yet your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you.” 7 “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Rule in 3:16 and master in 4:7 are the same Hebrew word. Some suggest a parallel due to that. I think that is what Kierkegaard is pointing out.
I agree with longing as the translation of desire that I found in Strongs. teshuqah Also used in Songs 7:10 I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me. So does God try to control us...or does He long for us. I agree that rule and master are the same word in regard to Genesis 4:7. That is what I am trying to say...having rule or dominion is having control. Men had the control. Men were women's masters and women desired (longed for) men.
I try as hard as I can to keep with the idea that I must take the Bible for what it says, not what I want it to say. I'd love to put a positive spin on Genesis 3:16. However, I find jumping to Song of Songs or Song of Solomon for interpretive help less convincing than parallel words used by the same author only 15 verses apart from one another.
I concur. I also think a fair reading is that God is being predictive or prophetic, not causative. I believe we tend to read way too much into the passage because millenia of culture has told us to do so. God did not say "Eve, you and all women will be inferior to men." God did not say "Man will rule over women." The last half of verse 16 is limited to an intermarital relationship dynamic. God's curse to Eve is a single curse: increased pain in childbirth. That's it. Nothing more. God simply said what would occur thereafter in spite of the increased pain. "Eve, I am going to greatly increase your paid in childbirth. Even though your natural tendency, as a result, would be to avoid childbirth, your sexual desire for your husband, even though you will not want the pain of childbirth, will result in him having sex with you, (i.e., his sexual desire dominating over your desire to avoid pain,) and you will get pregnant." The language "he will dominate/rule/master over you", without getting too graphic, can easily be understood to be a euphemism for the act of sex, but even that is not necessary to an egalitarian interpretation. It is just a possibility. It does not imply force. This would be consistent with God's command to "be fruitful and multiply," which would be otherwise overwhelmed by womans fear of pain in childbirth. It is also consistent with the rest of Scripture in terms of the equality of men and women as humans and in Christ.
This is similar to the 'problem' with Genesis 2, where you'll hear it taught that God put Adam (a man) to sleep and created Eve out of his rib. That's not actually what the Hebrew says, which is fairly generic (God put a human being to sleep and from the human being's side created Eve, after which 'man' and 'woman' language is used). TrustGzus pretty much has it. The curse (in Hebrew) doesn't involve God (un)making women inferior to men, or being made subservient to them. Just as man is cursed to painful toil with the ground (i.e. conflict), so too are men and women now in conflict (where they weren't before). Consider that there was already an order between men and women in the garden (we see this reflected in the marriage metaphors that Paul uses: Christ the head of the church, man the head of the wife...), so the curse couldn't have been 'this is the status quo'. Rather, it would be that men would abuse their position and (try to) rule over their wives (as indeed history attests), while women would try to overcome and control their husbands (I'm not entirely convinced of this, by the way, but I find it more attractive than most of the alternatives I've heard). Challies apparently wrote something similar a few years ago, so you might find his style easier than mine: http://www.challies.com/articles/her-desire-his-rule That's not the only view, of course. Genesis 3:16 could be saying exactly what it says: women will desired their husbands in such a way that they commit a kind of idolatry (that is, they replace God with their husbands). Depends on how you want to take the Hebrew, which isn't necessarily all that well reflected in English translations. Or what RK said above (the idea that the 'curses' are prophetic - all the result of 'here's what life is going to be life separated from me' - is worth considering). But to say it again: God didn't make women inferior to men as some kind of curse. All the curses are relational with respect to conflict and struggle, nothing more. 'Rule' and 'dominate' aren't value-based terms. I find it terrible that you've been taught that women were cursed with being inferior to men.
We have two of the same words used in verse 4:7 as 3:16, so that means there is a parallel? You do realize if you use sin as a parallel to Woman in those verses it is LIKE making woman evil? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin(woman) is crouching at the door. Its (sin's) (woman's) desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
You wouldn't use 'woman' as a parallel for 'sin' (what you're talking about is replacing the word 'sin' with 'women' -- which is messed up theology to say the least). We're talking about looking at the ways the same word is used in different contexts to better understand its meaning. Strike it from your mind: there is nothing in Genesis 1 - 3 that says that (1) women are evil, or (2) women are inferior to men, (3) women have been cursed with being inferior to men, etc. Whoever taught you that was wrong.
The only thing I really take from Genesis 3 is that as a result of sin, there would be a power struggle between the genders, where before there had been harmony and partnership. Most arguments between spouses can be directly traced back to a struggle over power and control. Most arguments between anyone can be traced back to the same thing, really. Power struggles all stem from ego, which is that separated part of us that runs around on its own without being forged to God and one another in true partnership like it was before the Fall happened. Thinking that one gender is inferior to the other (or that one person is inferior to any other) and gets to control the other, is a direct result of the Fall and stems from the desire of the ego to dominate and control other people. In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. PS: Just because the same word appears in several different passages, doesn't mean it means the exact same thing every time. Words only derive their true meaning from the overall context of the sentence/phrase they're in. That's true in any language. Which is why word studies evidently have limits, so please keep that in mind.
Your PS is a good point, Dani, that our fine group here probably all are aware of. Many factors go into how a word is used. Context is king. After immediate context, I look to whole book usage and then that particular author's usage in other books. Lastly, how other authors use a word. So, Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 could use two sets of words differently, but when looking for how they are used I think the answer is more likely found in how one author uses a word n his/her writing particularly when we are talking the space of 15 verses. That's really close. Same page on most of our Bibles. That is more likely to give insight than Song of Songs by a different author several centuries later. But it's not absolute. These are general guidelines. That being the case you are making the parallel. We wrestle for mastery of sin as God told Cain in Genesis 4:7 and couples who don't allow God, or at very least godly principles, govern their lives will often be fighting for control in the marriage.
I believe that if the meaning of desire is not having a longing for their husband, regardless of circumstances that desire allows for procreation and population of the planet to happen V.S. desire being the desire to usurp--(which from what I am reading is a more recent understanding) we would see more than one instance in scripture that this struggle is captured. The only place (I have remembered or found so far) written regarding this conflict is in the story of Jezebel and the King she is married to-- Jezebel is not a Jew, but a Pagan! Solomon's wives were not Jews but of differing religions...that lead him away. Rebellion against God is sin. We are all held accountable for our own choices. Please do find me some place in the O.T. where this desire to usurp (a husband and not God) is shown within the marriages of God's people to support this understanding. Not convinced. Let me offer this alternative: The curse is upon the serpent and the ground. These are completely unrelated to the specific sin of the fall. With Eve, sorrow with childbirth is completely unrelated to the sin of the fall. I believe this curse is what I have seen in this sinful world as my children struggled with all of the sins possible..the sorrow that this has caused me! What sorrow for Eve when Cain killed Abel! The world being under the curse and Jesus the only way out of that curse has lead to many tears, much battle for my children in prayer. I have seen the results of prayer. We can get an epidural today that stops the physical pain of childbirth. We have machines to work the land, ways to yield harvest. And forever women have been in love with being in love with men. THIS desire to be made whole by man is an outcome of the fall but the pain and sorrow is the curse. That men would then dominate women was the outcome of the fall, that disconnection from God who only could lead righteously was the curse. Whether a woman has children or does not ever, the sorrow over this childbearing is present. And so we lean upon Faith in His promises. We teach our children to follow and believe our children will return from wandering. Something leads to a woman not ever longing..and I would blame that on the sin or abuse and the abuses to women and children that remain on this earth. The problematic portion of this today is that men take the place of God if God is not known or given His proper place of worship. Please, consider that if saying women wanted to usurp Mans authority that could also be saying that woman with freedoms today were just trying to usurp mans authority, that this should never have happened.... Allow me to add that O.T. Proverbs 18:22 states: He who finds a wife finds a GOOD thing. And in the N.T. 1 Corinthians 7:33-35 states: I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.
I wonder about Genesis alot. Here are a series of stories written that are there for a foundation for the emerging nation of Israel. These are there to explain the world around them and set the people within that framework. Undoubtedly, the issues of the original relationship of men and women are part of that groundwork, but also goes on to explaining why things are not the way they should be, much as Job is story of why suffering happens to good people. Also giving birth has historically been (and continues to be) a rather major health hazard to women. I would think this rather common observation of the ancients may have also contributed toward the 'suffering' of childbirth, in addition to the obvious pain of birth itself.
teddyv, If the pain of childbirth was ever enough to persuade a woman to refuse men... Today, because of the "pain" of childbirth is that to say that women were never released from the curse? I do not believe this is the case. Our bodies are created quite mysteriously. In pregnancy bones soften and in birth can move. But for Mary who not only birthed in quite difficult circumstance as a virgin in a manger Jesus, but watched Him die on the cross innocent- her child and the Son of Man Luke 2:38-39 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” Genesis 3:14-15 So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” The curse is on all of man, not just women-- AND the curse is upon the serpent sin. Certainly women must not bear the brunt of the fall of man, but has her sorrow. The Promise is Christ. Childbirth pain is quite normal with our physical bodies. Just as having a kidney stone (I hear the pain is greater than giving birth) and yes, it can be complicated and cause death in situations. I see the pain from childbirth (not that Eve had ever bore children before this time or known Adam or any pain beforehand) not enough to stop women from desiring men, ever.