Monday, July 19, 2010

Why I don't post the biblioblog image

I have never posted the biblioblogger image on my blog and there are many reasons why not. Originally, I did my bibleblogging at the Better Bibles Blog, and I really enjoyed that. I tried to blog about 30% of the time on women's issues, and given the dearth of women biblioblogging, I thought that was fair. However, it caused problems and I left.

I felt at that time that the community did not want a woman talking about women's things. I also felt that a very few people were trying to imply things about me that were not true. I don't know why this happened, I never figured it out, but it hurt me deeply.

However, now I find that I still can't feel that I am a full participant. Whenever someone speaks in a positive manner about a scholar who is actively trying to keep women under submission, I feel that this is wrong.

Here is an example. In this video, Carson says something about the word authenteo that is false. He says, "the verb authenteo in most instances has a neutral or positive overtone. But there is a handful of instances where you can at least make a case that it can have a negative overtone." This is simply not true. There are NO cases of authenteo with a positive overtone. None. He must know this, because he must know that he doesn't know of any.

Perhaps he is quoting someone he trusts, or is saying something that he thinks is true. However, he is definitely saying something for which he has not seen the evidence.

How can an otherwise careful scholar do something like this? I understand this kind of thing as a display of the true feelings of a man toward women - that a woman must be restricted and subordinated in order to coexist with him in his universe. I cannot be part of that.

Let's also mention his aggravated "sigh." What are women? Pesky little children that need to be humoured? What does his overall tone and comportment say about his attitude toward women? I wish I knew, but nothing good, I am afraid.

Women's jailors - that what I get out of this.

8 comments:

Nathan Stitt said...

Fortunately not all men, and not all men in authority, feel this way about women.

Also, I wish that there were a lot more women blogging. I think part of it is that most women are busier than the average man.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Nathan

I am completely aware that most male bibliobloggers do not feel this way about women. But who will stand up for women and simply not go along with the male theologians who restrict women? As long as these men are praised and encouraged, they will restrict women. That is simple.

I believe that there are as many women who blog as men, and in the science blogging community about one third of bloggers are women. The biblioblogdom has some character about it, or perhaps the Bible has some character about it, which discourages women.

I know what bothers me, but I cannot speak for other women. There are quite a few, however, who are far more outspoken than I am about these theologians and the damage they do to women.

Thanks for dropping by. In spite of the rant, I do appreciate your friendship. :-)

Nathan Stitt said...

I guess I should have been more specific, in that I meant more women blogging about the Bible. I have recently added quite a few women to my feed reader, just to try and get more variety. Also, strict biblioblogs are no long that interesting to me, and I much prefer blogs with a little variety.

I don't enter many of the discussions that you do, but I read everything you write, here and elsewhere. I'm still figuring out where I stand on the complegalitarian topics. I feel at a disadvantage though because I've only ever really attended churches that were led by men. I can't really think of a church nearby that has female leadership, but I could probably find one if I tried really hard.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Nathan,

I haven't ever attended a church lead by a woman myself. In fact, that is not really my point, and I don't suggest that anyone go and look for such a thing.

I would encourage people to attend a church which treats women as those who function as equals. In my case, I felt that the lack of women in leadership helped to model to my ex-husband that women did not need to be treated as equals. Nuff said. Its in the home that women need to be equal. Church needs to simply say "women are equal" and then let the best person for the job be chosen. I am not for affirmative action.

LindaP said...

Suzanne, Why must anyone specify the realm in which women are equal? Cannot women be equal, period? Maybe the best place for equality to start is in the church since that is what informs everyone's opinion about the value placed on women. If women shuffle aside in church, not daring to rock the boat even if they desire a place of leadership and are as qualified as any of the males, then how dare women assume they will be worthy of equality in the home? Linda

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Yes, I think women should be equal period.

But I have read some women talk about how they feel lead to minister and preach, but they are still submissive to their husbands as the scriptures teach. That is a huge betrayal of women who suffer in the home.

Rather let every woman be equal in the home, and equal in church also.

It is simply a fact that I have not gone out of my way to find a church with a female minister. As long as there could be a female minister, I am content with that.

anumma.com said...

You point to a problem with Carson's talk that drives me crazy about many "expert Bible guy talking to lay people" talks:

Carson keeps saying that 1) there are literary exemplars that are relevant to his thesis, 2) lots of smart men have looked at them, 3) he is one of those smart men, and 4) those exemplars support or prove his thesis. The classic, fallacious, argument from authority.

A properly thoughtful crowd, even of lay people, should laugh us off the stage if we don't clearly represent the quantitative data we hint at, and do not offer (in translation, fine) illustrative examples that fairly represent the evidence in a balanced way.

What kills me is that this kind of argument from authority reflects the male privilege whose reinforcement drives C's thesis in the first place.

As to the "Biblioblogger" identity business, I have a sense that (for me) the matter is closely tied up with such concurrent questions as that about secular (evidence-based) biblical studies vs. confessional (dogma-based) biblical studies, and the observation that the Biblioblogger population is somewhat skewed toward conservative-background grad students coming to grips (often fairly generously but not always gracefully) with critical inquiry. For my part, I carry the tag, but often feel like an offset carrier in the crowd.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Brooke,

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I found Carson's talk to be very disrespectful of women. Obviously women do not deserve decent scholarly presentations. We are simply beneath all that. I was crushed by this talk of his. The only thing for a woman to do in a case like this is leave the room.

Regarding the biblioblogger community, it seems the priority is to allow gender conservatives freedom to express their views on women without censure, and not worry about whether this excludes women or not. Clearly women consider themselves excluded, for the most part.

I am very aware that that many, even most, bibliobloggers treat women with respect, as much as they are aware of it. But any praise for conservative scholars who put down women, is highly problematic for women. These men were my intellectual jailors.

Thanks for commenting.