Women systematically written out of Bible
Guest
book whose basic point is that women, feminine roles, and other important
feminine material have been systematically written out of the Bible during
successive translations. This is clearly of relevance even to those
without Christian/Hebrew beliefs, given the enormous impact that the Bible
has on our society and on the treatment of women. This book poses a
challenge to the modern patriarchal texts and church organizations.
>From the first chapter:
"One way to diminish certain segments of a population is to obliterate
records of their deeds. Without a history a group may be considered
unimportant -- i.e., no evidence exists showing its influence on the
world's developments.
"When one closely studies the Hebrew/Christian Bible and its various
translations, one can see how this process has been used to erase traces of
the earlier activities of women. It is a process that is still continuing
today -- either unintentionally or intentionally.
"Such a conclusion has many ramifications. First, it shows that the
biblical document has been altered for sexual-political reasons; second,
there appears to be a steady pattern of writing OUT feminine material, with
almost no evidence of feminine material being written IN; third, when
feminine material is reconstructed, whole stories and theological concepts
are changed. One of the most radical of these concepts is that a number of
biblical writers, throughout the history of the formation of the biblical
text, postulated an inclusive, androgynous, He/She Deity -- not a solely
masculine one. These subjects are discussed in this book.
"The Bible is central to this study because it heavily influences the
social questions of today -- particularly concerning the role of women.
Because the Bible is central, one must first understand what it is, and
what were the origins of its writers and the people in its stories."
The Book: "I Will Live Unloved: A Linguistic Analysis of Woman's Biblical
Importance," by J.J. McKenzie, 386 pages
Available from: University Press of America, Phone 800-462-6420;
4720 Boston Way, Lanham, MD 20706
Price: $32.50 paper, $49.50 cloth.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Seth Gordon
Trible's _God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality_. (Is this book *really*
out of print, or was Wordsworth's computer flaking out?)
For gender and sexuality in Jewish law and history, I've found
excellent analyses in Rachael Biale's _Women and Jewish Law_, David
Biale's _Eros and the Jews_, and Daniel Boyarin's _Carnal Israel_.
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"Allow me to fail to answer your question in an interesting way."
--Bill Cattey, MIT Information Systems
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Suzanne Patricia Johnson
Bible is an intriguing one. Without having read the book the original
poster referred to, I remain skeptical that the biblical record was in
fact altered to write out womens' experiences or sexuality in general.
It may simply be that these experiences were encoded in cultural symbols
less accessible to modern understanding.
With respect to the New Testament teachings, by reading between the lines
and examining other contemporary documents it begins to appear that
Christianity in the beginning spread largely due to female converts who
persuaded their husbands and household slaves to convert. At least, this
is what I was taught in a university course on the early Church. It is
not necessarily a major theme of the Bible itself.
There are several quite significant female figures in the Old Testament.
Some of these, like Sheba and Esther, are written about in terms of their
political achievments. It is true that the asexual and multiple god
forms of the hebrew word "elohim" ended up getting translated into
a singular male deity, but aside from such linguistic considerations,
much of the old testament seems to reek of sexuality. There is David's
relationship with Jonathan as well as his wives, and countless examples
of suitors meeting maidens beside wells in the desert. Sexual relation-
ships seem to be written about primarily for their politically and eco-
nomically strategic import, but a little lust creeps in at moments. In
reading Samuel, I get the impression that Jonathan really, really loved
David, in spite of their varying alleigances (Jonathan's dad had a nasty
habit of trying to kill David).
Most of the bible deals with the lives and deeds of a certain elite, some
of whom were women. The bible probably undercuts the daily life experiences
of both men and women who were non-elite. As a document of a highly
patriarchal culture, it clearly says less than one would like about
the role of elite women of that era. But, for the same reason, it seems
wrong to say that the record was altered to exclude such information --
rather it was written with the assumption that only in remarkable cases
could women be important to history and spirituality. What's _really_
remarkable is that, in spite of this bias, women _did_ emerge as signifi-
cant actors in the Great Record.
Later interpretations and translations might well have been altered --
one does not hear too much about David's bisexuality or the polyfidelity
of many ancient forefathers. But, if one reads carefully, there are
still alot of powerful women in the Bible.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
greg erwin
>Readers of this group may be interested in a recent and very interesting
>book whose basic point is that women, feminine roles, and other important
>feminine material have been systematically written out of the Bible during
>successive translations. <cut>
>>From the first chapter:
>
>"One way to diminish certain segments of a population is to obliterate
>records of their deeds. Without a history a group may be considered
>unimportant -- i.e., no evidence exists showing its influence on the
>world's developments.
>
>"Such a conclusion has many ramifications. First, it shows that the
>biblical document has been altered for sexual-political reasons; second,
>there appears to be a steady pattern of writing OUT feminine material, with
>almost no evidence of feminine material being written IN; third, when
>feminine material is reconstructed, whole stories and theological concepts
>are changed. One of the most radical of these concepts is that a number of
>biblical writers, throughout the history of the formation of the biblical
>text, postulated an inclusive, androgynous, He/She Deity -- not a solely
>masculine one. <more cuts>
>The Book: "I Will Live Unloved: A Linguistic Analysis of Woman's Biblical
>Importance," by J.J. McKenzie, 386 pages
>
>Available from: University Press of America, Phone 800-462-6420;
>4720 Boston Way, Lanham, MD 20706
>
I am Greg Erwin, President of the Humanist Association of Ottawa. I think
that the author is dreaming. It is pretty clear that the authors of the
Biblical texts did not consider women very important. In this, they were
typical examples of the society and times in which they lived. Basically,
they share the common characteristics of almost all early agricultural
nation states: some of these are a fanatical pro-natalism and a
consideration of women and children as male property. Even the idea of
property, is a function of developing agriculture. As the authors did not
consider women equal to men, did consider children to be proerty of the
father, saw nothing unremarkable in slavery or mass genocide and rape of
the losers in a war, they made their god approve these actions and
participate in them.
This only becomes a problem if you try to pretend that there is some
"divine" inpiration to this mythology. If it is treated as a product of
its times, its sentiments in general, and its attitude toward women, in
particular, is unremarkable.
Realize that men created god in their image, that god does not really
exist, anymmore than do Zeus, or Vishnu, or Kwan Yin, and you can study the
bible as it is, the compilations of an ancient people, reflecting various
traditions from about 3500 year before present to 2000 years before
present. As interesting as the Vedas, or Analects, but no more so.
Then, you don't have to look for ways in which women were written out.
They were never in, because no early agricultural city dwellers would have
thought it necessary to include them. If there were a god, and if it
inspired a "holy book" this would indicate that the god was a misogynist,
and, as you assume god to be fair and compassionate, this would be
puzzling. As there is no god, and the book was written by men over a long
period of time, during which women were not highly esteemed by the
societies which produced these texts, the texts simply reflect their
times, as you would expect.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Edmond Dantes
>With respect to the New Testament teachings, by reading between the lines
>and examining other contemporary documents it begins to appear that
>Christianity in the beginning spread largely due to female converts who
>persuaded their husbands and household slaves to convert. At least, this
>is what I was taught in a university course on the early Church.
This is true of mass (NPI) movements in general. Eric Hoffers analysic
pretty much explains this. Of they types of people that are atttracted
to these movements the two that christianity attracted were the hopelessly
poor and downtroden (slaves) and the bored (educated aristocratic women
who could not put that education to use).
It is
>not necessarily a major theme of the Bible itself.
>There are several quite significant female figures in the Old Testament.
>Some of these, like Sheba and Esther, are written about in terms of their
>political achievments. It is true that the asexual and multiple god
>forms of the hebrew word "elohim" ended up getting translated into
>a singular male deity, but aside from such linguistic considerations,
>much of the old testament seems to reek of sexuality. There is David's
>relationship with Jonathan as well as his wives, and countless examples
>of suitors meeting maidens beside wells in the desert. Sexual relation-
>ships seem to be written about primarily for their politically and eco-
>nomically strategic import, but a little lust creeps in at moments. In
>reading Samuel, I get the impression that Jonathan really, really loved
>David, in spite of their varying alleigances (Jonathan's dad had a nasty
>habit of trying to kill David).
>it was written with the assumption that only in remarkable cases
>could women be important to history and spirituality.
It was only remarkable cases period. There is no book of Isaac the potter
for the same reason there is no book of Sarah the spinner. If women
wern't allwoed to participate in public life it is hardly surprising
that they don't play a large part in the historical record.
Jennifer A. Newbury
>I think that the author is dreaming. It is pretty clear that the
authors >of the Biblical texts did not consider women very important.
In this, they >were typical examples of the society and times in which
they lived. >Basically, they share the common characteristics of almost
all early >agricultural nation states: some of these are a fanatical
pro-natalism and >a consideration of women and children as male property.
I think you aren't very clear on your history. I took an early
christianity course a few years ago, and I distinctly remember that
women were very important in the formation of the early church. In one
of Paul's letters he refers to a woman who has higher status in the
church than he. Read the gnostic gospels-- the books that never made it
to the current bible, but were discovered at the turn of the century
buried in Egypt. Some of these books were written by women. They are
full of many strong female characters, including entire cults for Mary
Magdalen, and a mythical female martyr whose name just escaped me. Roman
cities, where christianity developed, were full of people who didn't fit
their caste-- rich educated slaves, female business owners, etc. They
were NOT typical examples of their society. It was these people who
founded the early christian church. It wasn't until several hundred
years A.D., when christianity became the religion of choice within the
established patriarchy, that the bible as we know it began to emerge,
the other texts destroyed and their believers prosecuted.
>They were never in, because no early agricultural city dwellers would have
>thought it necessary to include them.
This is simply untrue. Women played a very crucial part in the early
development of christianity and in the works of Jesus during his
ministry.The Book of Mary, dating from about 100 AD, places Mary
Magdalen as the "beloved disciple" of Jesus (as well as his physical
lover). Is it surprising that this text was removed (by men) from
standard christian readings? From a purely historical point of view, the
above statement is rubbish. As far as the new testament of the bible is
concerned, many of those city dwellers (they weren't very agricultural)
WERE women and thought it very necessary to include women in the "bible"
of the time.
Of course, one college history class hardly makes me an expert. I'm
sorry that I don't have specific references on hand, but I can hunt them
down if anyone is interested.
timothy shimeall
very thoroughly. There are copious examples of women in VERY valued
positions: Eve, viewed as fully responsible as Adam and dealt with
evenly in the consequences; Deborah and the women who killed Sisra in
Judges, Hannah, shown as wiser than Eli the high priest in I Samuel,
Abagail, shown as wiser than Nabal in her treatment of David, Ruth
prevailing on her own to provide for herself and her mother-in-law,
Esther outwitting both the King of Persia and his minister, the
valuing of women in Proverbs 31 - a list of values unique in ancient
literature, the even participation in romance shown in Song of
Soloman, etc. NONE of this is devaluing of women - and with so many
examples to cite that the idea of "systematic writing of women out of
the Bible" is simply a laughably false concept.
I'm not even citing the equality of men and women in the New Testament
-- Mary as a choosing and willing participant in bearing Jesus; Mary
and Martha of Bethany as diverse women each choosing to follow Jesus
in their own way; The equivalence of male an female sin reflected in
the "let him without sin cast the first stone" discussion; Paul's
teaching of "In Christ there is no male and female"; the placing of
women in leadership positions described in the writings of Paul, Peter
and John, etc.
Now, I'm not arguing that some men have used selective quotes from the
Bible to subjugate women -- we all know that this has taken place.
But I feel strongly that an unbiased reading of scripture will show
a remarkable degree of equality in that document, given the culture
in which it was written.
For a complete discussion of how women are protrayed in the Bible, I'd
recommend Hebert Lockyer's "All the Women of the Bible" (1.5
edge-inches, small type, about $13 hardcover from Christian Book
Distributors, mail order).
Tim
Taner Edis
early Christianity that was then corrupted by patriarchy is
revisionism without much support. At best, it can hope perhaps to
make room for such an interpretation; but that is on account of the
large degree of historical uncertainty to this matter, which can
accommodate many alternative scenarios. At worst, it is modern
mythmaking, molding the past to conform to present desires, as with
matriarchy theories.
Jennifer Newbury has:
> women were very important in the formation of the early church.
That is not in dispute, though revisionists tend to exaggerate
the importance of this. See Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians,"
for an account of early Christianity that helps put this in context.
As a modern comparison, note that women often are more religious than
men, even in the most patriarchal of religions, while the leadership
tends to be composed of men. Newer religions, such as those the
United States have been producing in abundance, give more scope to
female leadership, but tend to slip into male dominance with time. In
short: importance of women in the early Christian religion fits the
pattern of social marginality, but says practically nothing about
theological or doctrinal attitudes.
> Read the gnostic gospels-- the books that never made it to the current
> bible, but were discovered at the turn of the century buried in
> Egypt.
The Nag Hammadi material isn't especially feminist, though I
imagine that lack of Pauline material might make it seem so in
comparison. Note also that gnostics were the margin of the margin,
and cannot be taken to represent True Christianity -- a nonexistent
entity. The first two centuries of Christianity was a theological
mess, allowing for much divergence of opinion, but we have no reason
to conclude that any of the strands we know of are more "authentic."
Some Gnostic material may well express feminist sentiments; some are
pretty misogynistic; either way we have little information to go on.
> It wasn't until several hundred years A.D., when christianity became
> the religion of choice within the established patriarchy, that the
> bible as we know it began to emerge, the other texts destroyed and
> their believers prosecuted.
Not quite. There is a concern about doctrinal orthodoxy in
canonical Bible material from the 1st century, and even if a rigid
canon was set later, the 2nd century had some distinct ideas about
what was proper -- not that different than what ended up being
established.
> The Book of Mary, dating from about 100 AD, places Mary Magdalen as
> the "beloved disciple" of Jesus (as well as his physical lover). Is it
> surprising that this text was removed (by men) from standard christian
> readings?
It is not surprising that this did not become orthodoxy,
agreed. We need not explain this by a "patriarchally corrupted
Christianity" myth, however. There simply wasn't a unitary
Christianity in the 1st Century, which allowed some breathing space
for such heresies (the "physical lover" part goes against the dominant
strain of Christianity even more than the supposed feminist content),
but that is about all we can conclude.
> As far as the new testament of the bible is concerned, many of those
> city dwellers (they weren't very agricultural) WERE women and thought
> it very necessary to include women in the "bible" of the time.
The agrarian society comments apply to the Old Testament. But
the Christian Bible is quite dependent on it, and where it repudiates
it, it does so in contradictory or ambiguous ways.
That early Christian women would want to include women in the
Bible in an egalitarian fashion is pure surmise. Women, particularly
upper class women, have always actively participated in maintaining a
patriarchal culture, there is no reason to suppose a radical
difference in this case.
> I'm sorry that I don't have specific references on hand, but I can
> hunt them down if anyone is interested.
I would be interested -- however, my inclination is to be
skeptical about deeper forms of feminist revisionism here.
Timothy Shimeall:
> There are copious examples of women in VERY valued positions: Eve,
> viewed as fully responsible as Adam and dealt with evenly in the
> consequences; Deborah and the women who killed Sisra in Judges,
> Hannah, . . . .
These do not amount to much, unless we are to declare that the
existence of Benazir Bhutto and Tansu Ciller means that Islam has
suddenly become gender-egalitarian. There have always been women,
particularly among the upper classes, that have achieved some
prominence even within patriarchal strictures. It remains that the
Bible, both in history narrated and ideology propounded, is a document
supporting male dominance.
> NONE of this is devaluing of women - and with so many examples to cite
> that the idea of "systematic writing of women out of the Bible" is
> simply a laughably false concept.
The above conclusion is probably correct -- but it is based on
a false premise.
> I'm not even citing the equality of men and women in the New Testament
> -- Mary as a choosing and willing participant in bearing Jesus;
Interesting example -- Mary has always been depicted as an
utterly passive figure, and has been revered for this exact quality.
> Paul's teaching of "In Christ there is no male and female";
Do I need even cite some other, more relevant Pauline
passages? The Christian sense of equality "under God" operates
against any meaningful sense of equality, by relegating it to some
meaningless metaphysical plane. I'm not sure a feminist can derive
much comfort out of Paul's version of putting them on a pedestal.
> the placing of women in leadership positions described in the writings
> of Paul, Peter and John, etc.
Exceptional circumstances are noteworthy because of their
exceptionality. The above is no more relevant than Islamic stories
about the 80 women religious scholars among the 1000 men and so forth
(I forget how it goes; I can dig it up upon request) in establishing
its egalitarian credentials.
> But I feel strongly that an unbiased reading of scripture will show a
> remarkable degree of equality in that document, given the culture in
> which it was written.
Perhaps, taken with a boulder of salt. The only caveat that
can save the above is the "time and culture" qualifications. It sure
isn't good enough for the present.
It seems that the primary religious belief of many is not a
belief in the Bible, but a belief in belief in the Bible. This leads
pretty quickly to distorted interpretations, twisting of language, and
substitution of word games and mythology revisionism for action. This
whole issue reminds me closely of the "ancient matriarchy" modern
myth: the truly valuable correctives a feminist perspective can bring
to history are lost in a cloud of myth-mongering. Anti-feminists then
typically use the nonsensical elements to discredit the serious work.
Taner Edis
In order to secure victory for women we must unfetter the
minds of men from religious bondage.
-- Matilda Joslyn Gage, 1890
Motti
> It is true that the asexual and multiple god
>forms of the hebrew word "elohim" ended up getting translated into
>a singular male deity, but aside from such linguistic considerations,
>much of the old testament seems to reek of sexuality. There is David's
This word is translated sometimes as referring to pagan gods and
usually as referring to the actual God. It all depends on the context
of how it is translated. However, the idea that it refers to a
singular male diety is pure speculation and deviates from all
commentaries that discuss this. Use of the male ending does not
make god male anymore than talking about menorot makes lamps female.
God even says directly, "I am not a man...." :) well: I am not a man
that i change my mind. also Yitro is a quick example that comes to mind
of a verse where el--im is clearly used in both meanings of the word.
Also, as far back as any record can indicate, the big wig Sages *all*
said that the referring to god's finger, hand etc. have always been
understood to be anthroporphisms, and figures of speech.
Perhaps the above statement is also an insinuation that the Israelites
*officially* believed in many gods, and later the translation of
that word got altered to only make it *appear* that the Israelies
were actually monotheisitic. I think that idea is pure speculation,
with no support; and at deviance with all the writings of Prophets.
>Later interpretations and translations might well have been altered --
>one does not hear too much about David's bisexuality
That is because there is no mention or record or tradition or any
shred of evidence of this alleged bisexuality. WE should avoid
projecting our fantasies on some singular verse, and then inventing
theories why no teacher or commentator ever mentioned such an
interpretation.
In the context of serious character flaws that were mentioned
about many of the bible greats it seems unreasonable that somehow
this lesser 'flaw' would be ommited.
I've seen no evidence of this bisexuality (and that goes for the
presumed lesbian affair of Ruth and Naomi). I think these interpretations
were only recently invented, and for political reasons, and have no
textual or contextual basis or any written or oral records to back it
up in the least. I guess this is where we touch base with feminism
again; as i think it was modern scholars who wish to inject some
feminist scholarship (and not the kind of feminist sholarship i
subscribe to) by dreaming up these homosexual speculations about
Ruth, Naomi, David, Yonatan.
mordechai steve seidman
sr...@crux3.cit.cornell.edu
Seth Gordon
ed...@eta.pha.jhu.edu (Taner Edis) writes:
>
>As a modern comparison, note that women often are more religious than
>men, even in the most patriarchal of religions, while the leadership
Does anyone know of any good sociological research that attempts to
explain this? Is there something about these religious organizations
that makes them more attractive to women, despite their male leadership?
Is there something about male leadership *itself* that makes these groups
attractive to many women? Are there ways in which the women exert
pressure from below on the leadership? What's going on here?
--
seth gordon // se...@gnu.ai.mit.edu // standard disclaimer // pgp2-compatible
"We have sought truth, and sometimes perhaps found it. But have we
had any fun?" --Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893), Greek scholar and master
of Balliol college, Oxford
Suzanne Patricia Johnson
>>it was written with the assumption that only in remarkable cases
>>could women be important to history and spirituality.
>
>It was only remarkable cases period. There is no book of Isaac the potter
>for the same reason there is no book of Sarah the spinner. If women
>wern't allwoed to participate in public life it is hardly surprising
This is true, and essentially in agreement with my main point. However,
I would modulate "not playing a large part in the historical record" to
"not playing a recognized part in the historical record". The labor and
cultural contributions that women and other under-recorded groups have
made to history are significant, if not always seen to be so.
That's why I maintain that Biblical texts were not _altered_, as the book
reviewed in the original post seemed to argue, to exclude the female
experience. Rather than reflecting a conspiracy of silence, they reflect
the narrative logic of a certain historical and cultural milieux.
A similar criticism can be made of some contempoary approaches to incest,
which identify the origins of the practice of incest in ancient times and
label it a mode of patriarchal exploitation and oppresion. Susan
Brownmiller's _Against Our Will_ is one text that takes this approach,
which commits the fundamental error of translating onto diverse cultural
and historical phenomena a seemingly universally normative set of criteria.
asia z lerner
However, the idea that it refers to a
>singular male diety is pure speculation and deviates from all
>commentaries that discuss this. Use of the male ending does not
>make god male anymore than talking about menorot makes lamps female.
>God even says directly, "I am not a man...." :)
THis is a misunderstanging of the original claim. The claim isn't that God
is overtly equated with a male, but that God is explained and formulated via
overwelmingly male images, which point to the quality of the overall
understanding of divinity.
>Also, as far back as any record can indicate, the big wig Sages *all*
>said that the referring to god's finger, hand etc. have always been
>understood to be anthroporphisms, and figures of speech.
>
Nevertheless, there has been a great outcry when certain feminist streams
in Judaism started refering to God in the female gender in their lithurgy.
Asia
asia z lerner
>In article <EDIS.94M...@eta.pha.jhu.edu>
> ed...@eta.pha.jhu.edu (Taner Edis) writes:
>>
>>As a modern comparison, note that women often are more religious than
>>men, even in the most patriarchal of religions, while the leadership
>>tends to be composed of men....
>
>Does anyone know of any good sociological research that attempts to
>explain this? Is there something about these religious organizations
>that makes them more attractive to women, despite their male leadership?
>Is there something about male leadership *itself* that makes these groups
>attractive to many women? Are there ways in which the women exert
>pressure from below on the leadership? What's going on here?
>
The above is misdescribed as a time-undependent phenomenon.
Women's "greater religiosity" is a phenomemon that has a historical
beginning in the end of 18-beg. 19th century, and is correlated
with the other side of the story, which is that men abandoned religiosity
at the same period of time - speaking on a large level of generality here,
but still. This is a dynamics that's connected with the general diminishment
of the importance accorded to things religeous. In the sub-groups in which
such diminishment did not take place - Amish, Orthodox Jews, etc.. the notion
that women are more religios than men is unknown.
Asia
Bill Hovingh, Grand Inquisitor of Boulder
>>
>>As a modern comparison, note that women often are more religious than
>>men, even in the most patriarchal of religions, while the leadership
>>tends to be composed of men....
>
>
> Does anyone know of any good sociological research that attempts to
> explain this? Is there something about these religious organizations
> that makes them more attractive to women, despite their male leadership?
> Is there something about male leadership *itself* that makes these groups
> attractive to many women? Are there ways in which the women exert
> pressure from below on the leadership? What's going on here?
Mostly, it has to do with the increasing tendency of religion to become a
*private* function, something that the family (read: wife) is responsible for.
Some have suggested that it goes back to Victorian culture, in which the male
was responsible for the "public" functions of money-earning and civil service,
while his wife was responsible for the "private" functions of raising the
children and keeping the faith active. For the Victorians, of course, going
to church remained a public act; in our day, religion is so separated from
public life (it can't mix with state functions, and we don't even talk about
it at work) that only the "privateness" remains. There is just enough power
left in positions of religious leadership that some men will take them.
For a long time, American churches operated on the principle of the division
of labor: men did the dividing, and women did the labor. But now that
religious life has become almost entirely privatized, much of the leadership
work (the tedious bits, especially) is being taken over by women. In
traditions which now ordain women to the pastorate, one consequence is that
ministry is becoming a less attractive vocation: as more women become pastors,
churches tend to expect more work from pastors, while granting them less
compensation and less authority. This is in spite of most congregations'
resistance to hiring a woman in the first place.
One of the most confusing aspects of women's participation in the church is
that women, just as much as men, vocally resist hiring a woman pastor.