Does The Bible Oppress Women? Part I: Oppression, Submission and Gender Roles
A common argument among feminists in attempts to discredit The Bible is that the Holy Word of God oppresses women. The denominational world will also make the assertion that certain aspects of The Bible are unjust to or oppress women. Denominations use this rationale as an attempt to justify their religious practices. As close reading of the Biblical text will tell, The Bible does not oppress women. In this article I will briefly attempt to shed some light on this topic and explain my reasoning. Disclaimer: To carefully follow my arguments, you may want to have a Bible handy.
The denominational world and many who identify themselves with the feminist movement will make the assertion that passages such as Eph. 5:22-33 or I Pet 3:1-7 oppress women. The rhetoric employed by these groups to make such an argument seeks to bend, distort and twist the scriptures, thus the only way such an argument can operate concerning The Bible is through the deliberate displacement of context and the mutilation of not only the words in The Bible, but also the words of our common language. Consider the subject of the claims made by such groups: Oppression. Oppression is defined as, “to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power” (Dictionary.com). So briefly, let’s consider the passages cited above in conjunction with the term “oppression.”
As we read in both passages women are commanded to be submissive. (Eph 5:22; I Pet. 3:1) If we examine the nature of the word submission or to submit, we see that if indeed these passages are “oppressive”, then submission cannot be present, for submission both defines and implies a willing relinquishment of power, whereas oppression as we just examined, exercises power over individuals whether they submit or not. In this case, oppression and submission are mutually exclusive.
Another issue that is not considered in the feminist or denominational attempt justify their misaligned argument is that such passages, if indeed they are oppressive (which they are not, as the above paragraph proves), then they oppress both men and women and not solely women exclusively as is the claim. As we examine both passages once again, requirements and commands are given to both sexes. As the women are commanded to submit, be homemakers first and respect their husbands, likewise the husbands are commanded to provide for their wives and families, to protect, love and support them, to hold their wives higher than themselves (Eph. 5:28-29; I Pet. 3:7). Since requirements and commands are given for both of sexes in these passages, the argument that these passages oppress women can only work if these passages oppress men as well. If a woman should not be confined to such roles why should a man be confined to roles? Of course, this is something the denominational world and feminists especially would deny or shirk at consideration, and something modern society will generally not consider. As we see, if the passages are misapplied, then the marriage relationship becomes two people yoked together in equal oppression, which in consideration of the passages or the message of The Bible as whole is something that is entirely contradictory, for certainly such commands are not unjust or burdensome. The audacity of the denominational world is especially damaging in this regard because many of these groups will claim to follow commands of The Bible, thus turning God’s Word into their interpretive lens, and nullifying their own claims seeing as how they claim to follow a law that “oppresses women” in their own words, thus identifying themselves as disciples of an oppressive and archaic book that is out of touch with the status quo thereby creating a hypocritical viewpoint from the perspective of those outside of the so-called Christian world. In essence, creating the appearance that Christians everywhere are nothing but bucolic sheepherders who stumbled into a modern world. The feminists’ critique in this regard isn’t as damaging as the denominationalists’ due to the nature of feminism’s association that is more closely aligned to a political movement, thus it doesn’t attempt to give any credit to The Bible, whereas denominationalism does.
The requirements and roles given to each sex foster and promote a relationship of love, tenderness and devotion. To rebut the woman question: a passage such as I Pet 3:7 will be labeled as oppressive, being misapplied as identifying women as the weaker sex. As we read the verse, it is easily identified that a comparison is made, the husband gives “honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, being heirs together,” in no way does this verse state that the woman is weaker, for if the woman was weaker how could the husband and wife be heirs together? The comparison is a simile equating the woman to something that is precious and something that should be honored. Feminists and denominationalists, nor anyone for that matter, can coherently or logically make the argument that requiring honor to be given to someone as oppressive. Once again the only possible way for this assertion to work is if the passage is changed or language and the meanings of the words themselves are changed. The phrase “as to the weaker vessel” refers to a place of honor, and a place that will be respected and held above all others on earth, which is comparable to relationship to Nathan’s discussion of the poor man’s lamb in II Samuel 12. In no way, shape or form does the comparison of the wife to a weaker vessel mean that the wife is weaker than or less equal than the husband. By no means is this an oppressive statement.
The fact of the matter is that men and women are different just as people in general are different from one another (but no less equal in spirit), and thus their primary roles are going to be different. Consider Eph. 4:11, “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and some teachers,” and verse 16, “from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” As we each are given different abilities, so are men and women, just because different roles may be given in no way means that women are less equal than men or vice versa. Just as different parts of the body work together for its benefits so should men and women in their relationships with one another and with God.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think you're really stretching your interpretations here.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
I can see your point, and it may seem so from different perspectives. Though not to get into issues of interpretation (for that is an entirely different and lengthy discussion in and of itself), I must reitierate the point I made in the article that both passages (Eph 5:22-33 and I Pet 3:1-7) call for submission. Submission does not necessarily imply opprression. Consider once again the English definitions of both words and it seems (you may call this my interpretation if you like) that where one submits, oppression cannot exist. If one weren't submissive, then indeed oppression may exist for that entity, but if there is an element of submission, then based upon both the definitions of the word and the context of the passages, oppression does not exist.
I must also ask you to consider the point that is made in I Pet 3:7, "Husbands dwell with them in understanding, giving honor to the wife", I'll leave you with the question I made in the article: Is giving honor to another person an act of oppression?
I must also state that my critique is that of common feminist and evangelical christian arguments. The typical evangelical argument is especially annoying because groups will claim to follow the scriptures, but will take passages such as the ones listed and completely ignore them. My point is simply that the arguments of these two groups can only operate if the passages are taken out of context.
One point of criticism that I could offer myself, and that could help your argument against me concerns the history of the Bible, and the reasoning as to why such a command would be placed within the Biblical text. Consider the fact that every Bible writer is a man, and there is no female authorship within any of the books of the Bible other than when female characters are speaking (and these instances are very sparse). This fact alone may give creedence as to why such a command may be in the text.
You may also consider as a rebuttal to my article, the fact that every Bible writer is Jewish in the strictest since (with the exception of Luke). Again, Jewish societies throughout the ages have been traditionally patriarichal and this fact may create a reasoning as to why women are commanded to be submissive in the New Testament and Old Testament alike. In this line of reasoning, the argument could be made that the commands are matters of tradition and are not directly pertaining to spirituality, thus placing the text in a construct of obseletion.
But I must say that the idea of the interpretations being stretched is a difficult assertion to make, and my contention with that statement is mainly that you have provided no evidence to support your claim.
No hard feelings, just a matter of argument. Argument and rhetoric are after all how we learn. Thank you for your response and input.
Dude, I didn't make an argument, I made a comment. That's why it was only one sentence.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
Don't you know that everything is an argument? I took it that way because I want to know why you think I am stretching my interpetations. Once again I thank you for your comment, but it is not very educative to offer a comment without stating a reason for it.
Jewish societies were also very progressive at a time... they had the highest literacy among both men AND women because they encouraged this education so much.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
...that the verses you cite are not the original scriptural basis for the subjugation of women. That "honor" goes to Genesis 3:16, where "God" lays a curse upon all women as punishment for Eve's temptaion of Adam to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
There is no "willing relinquishment" to this, or any of the other commandments regarding the biblical commandments regarding the subjugation of women.
In a more modern context, if you are a christian you can easily determine whether or not the sect of christianity to which you belong is or is not oppressive to women. Simply consider whether or not a woman is allowed to hold the highest position of (mortal) authorty associated with the sect. If the answer is no, then your sect does in fact oppress women. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I understand your point, but my contention with your rebuttal would be considering the idea of religious sects. Whether or not a sect allows a woman to hold a position of authority or not does not automatically qualify as oppression. If the woman agrees to follow the laws and practices of a particular sect (however restrictive or nonrestrictive they may be), she submits herself to such a law and does not identify it as oppression. Now if a woman joins a sect and does not agree with the place it may put her as a woman, then indeed it will be oppression because submission is not present. In this case, the woman may chose to join another sect or do whatever else she wills to free herself of this oppression.
One other point that I must make, that I mentioned briefly in the original piece is that if these passages oppress women, then they oppress men as well, for both are subject to law and the roles assigned by such a law. Now if both parties agree to the law, then the law cannot be said to be oppressive, but if they disagree then the oppression occurs.
You quote Genesis 3:16 as your evidence, and it is a good passage to quote for your argument upon the basis of the subjugation of women. Just to clarify, Christianity in general does not turn to the Old Testament for its basis of authority, (Consider Colossians 2:13-14; and Hebrews 8:1-6). Most Christian groups use the Old Testament as the building blocks for the New Testament, as I Pet. 3:21 talks of the type and the antitype, the antitype being the New Testament law that was established at the death of Christ. Sorry for the tangent, just trying to make a clarification concerning the common Christian point of view. But I reitierate that if the Genesis passage is oppressive to women, it is oppressive to men as well. Consider Gen. 3:17-19 the text states:
"The to Adam He said, 'Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat,:
Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles
it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of
the field.
In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are
and to dust you shall return.'"
I have to contend with your idea that submitting to a law means that a person is not longer oppressed by that law. Laws themselves can be inherently oppressive. So can societal norms and institutions. If slavery is legal, just because a person submits to being a slave doesn't mean they aren't being oppressed. The law itself and the institution and societal norms it creates are oppressive in themselves, whether the person being oppressed fights back or not.
And in response to the idea that the Bible creating stereotypical gender roles is also oppressive to men if it is oppressive to women is totally correct. Concrete hyper-masculine and hyper-female roles and the idea of a gender binary are oppressive to both women and men.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
"I have to contend with your idea that submitting to a law means that a person is not longer oppressed by that law. Laws themselves can be inherently oppressive. So can societal norms and institutions. If slavery is legal, just because a person submits to being a slave doesn't mean they aren't being oppressed. The law itself and the institution and societal norms it creates are oppressive in themselves, whether the person being oppressed fights back or not."
To take it back to the passages, Ephesisians 5:25 commands the husbands to love their wives. I Peter 3:7, "Husbands likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife as to the equal vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered." The wives and husbands both submitting to such a law free themselves of oppression. I must ask the question, is oppression present where a person is to be honored or loved? Consider that both passages provide for the woman to be loved and honored. Is this indeed oppression?
With all due respect, bullshit. The systematic exclusion of an entire class of people from the reigns of authority is just about as blatant an example of "oppression" as one could imagine. And I'm sorry, but your reasoning seems more than a little convoluted. I think the first thing we need in this discussion is a reasonably accurate definition of "oppression."
"Oppression is the act of using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another."
The power in the relationship prescribed in the bible clearly favor the men over the women. And voluntary or not, a sect or philosophy which requires women to "submit" and "be silent" seems to clearly meet this definition. And it is interesting to note that very few people really choose their membership in a particular religious belief system. It is very rare for someone to actively convert away from or into a sect that is not at least closely related to the belief-systems of their parents. The vast majority of people who are religious learned to accept their particular brand of "faith" through a process of early childhood education.
Even if this were not the case, a volundary submission to an oppressive situation doesn't make the situation any less oppressive. A similar psychology can be witnessed in a wide variety of destructive relationships. For example...
"Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, rape cases, child abuse cases and bride kidnapping. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term Stockholm Syndrome was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast."
I must also reject your claim that, "Christianity in general does not turn to the Old Testament for its basis of authority." That's complete bullshit, too. Theologically speaking, the "god" of the old testament is the same "god" of Abraham that is found in the new. The story of Adam and Eve and of "original sin" is a core myth that is taught consistently in both catholic and protestant christian theology. I mean, do you seriously not see the connection between "god" cursing woman to be ruled by man, and the latter verses that instruct women to submit to that rule? If you don't then its going to be rather hard to take you seriously.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"With all due respect, *&%$&*$#"
First of all, stating with all due respect, followed by that word does not exactly qualify as a respectful statement. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism, but it is hard for me to see how you could expect to be respected in return when you are blatantly disrespecting others by making statements such as that. It is not cute, it is not an example of exquisite literary style, but degrading to anyone who may read this thread.
"I think the first thing we need in this discussion is a reasonably accurate definition of 'oppression.'"
Did you not see the definition in the original blog of oppression that was provided?
"The systematic exclusion of an entire class of people from the reigns of authority is just about as blatant an example of "oppression" as one could imagine."
If this is the case, then am I oppressed by the United States constitution because I'm not 35 years of age or older and therefore cannot run for President? Does that mean that all people under the age of 35 are oppressed because they are excluded from that reign of authority? It is the same line of reasoning, but yet no one makes this argument, and I don't think that most people would agree that the example of excluding those under 35 as oppressive.
"I must also reject your claim that, "Christianity in general does not turn to the Old Testament for its basis of authority." That's complete , &*@$%^&$ too. Theologically speaking, the "god" of the old testament is the same "god" of Abraham that is found in the new. "
I fail to see how a claim can literally be solid male bovine excretory waste.
Yes the god of Abraham is the same god that is present in the New Testament, and both testaments talk about this. The thing you are failing to recognize is that in practice and in worship Christian groups follow the New Testament. Certain elements of the Old Testament may be followed, but they are only the ones that are also found in the New Testament as well. Old Testament commands that aren't found in the New Testament aren't practiced. That's why Christian groups no longer sacrifice animals for atonement. You must also consider the fact that the Old Testament repeatedly speaks of the coming of a new law that will put it as the current law out of practice.
"The story of Adam and Eve and of "original sin" is a core myth that is taught consistently in both catholic and protestant christian theology. I mean, do you seriously not see the connection between "god" cursing woman to be ruled by man, and the latter verses that instruct women to submit to that rule?"
I know what you mean by the term "original sin", the origin of the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden according to the Genesis account/myth/whatever you want to call it. But the term is tricky among various Christian denominations because most of these Christian groups use that term to imply that everyone is full of sin the moment they are born. Sort of the idea that due to Adam and Eve, even the newborn infant is guilty of sin. I don't agree with this idea myslef, but many people will take the idea of original sin to mean just that. I know what you mean in reference to the term and the context of this discussion, but the term is applied and interpreted in many different ways, which if you are in a future discussion on a similar topic, is something you might want to be aware of.
I see the connection, and you disagree with my assertion and that is your right. But I'll reiterate that if a person submits to a law, then that person no longer sees themself as oppressed because they believe that law has their best interests at heart.
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.[/quote]
dumbname23, please address my comment where I disagree with the idea that submitting to law means that law is no longer oppressive.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
I think you missed the sarcasm, there. I responded to your argument with exactly as much respect that I felt it was due...which wasn't very much, lol.
I did miss that. Thank you for pointing it out. I must say, however, that your arguments seem to stand in stark opposition to even that definition.
Actually, its not the same line of reasoning at all. The age requirement for the presidency is an condition set equally before all citizens who might wish to attain that office, and which barring some unusual circumstance have a reasonable expectation of satisfying. That's the difference. The "submission of women" takes a discrete class of people and arbitrarily and permanently separates them in a unique fashion from ever operating on an equal footing. The age restriction for Presidency, however, serves a rational purpose (based on the assumption that a certain amount of maturity is a reasonable expectation for someone who holds the job), and places a temporary restriction that applies equally to all citizens, and which relieves itself in the same manner and in the same time for all involved.
Perhaps you have heard of the literary device known as the metaphor?
A fair arugment, but not one which applies in this case since neither the story of Adam and Eve, nor the concept of "original sin" are included in the list of theologies that were not adopted by christian sects. In fact, the new testament makes clear reference to this story, and the basic theology of the origin of sin that story describes in both Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Fair enough, though I think you are missing the point. Unless you are willing to state that the Story of Adam and Eve is FALSE, including the passage where "god" lays the curse upon Eve that consigns all women to pain in childbirth and subjects them to the rule of their husbands, then your argument fails.
Well, you can "reiterate" it all you want. But, words have meanings, and your "reiteration" doesn't change the fact that the relationship you describe easily fits within the definition (both yours and mine) of the term "oppression."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I think you missed the sarcasm, there."
No, I was very aware of the verbal irony and sarcasm in the statement, but I still doesn't feel it warrants the use of that type of language.
"Perhaps you have heard of the literary device known as the metaphor? "
No, no I've never heard of a metaphor before, thank you for the link (sarcasm). See I can use it too, and apparently you missed my attempt at it when I made the comment about the animal waste.
But pleasantries aside I'll try to address your contentions.
Yes, the passages you cite are correct and do deal with the ideas of "original sin" in the context of this discussion. But as the passages identify the coming of Christ trumps the sin of Adam as the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Now, considering the place of women in the Old Testament, there are no passages that command husbands to honor, love or respect their wives. (The Song of Solomon does speak on the love between and man and wife, but is subverted by the fact the Solomon had a harem of over 1,000 women.) I must ask the question considering the passages from Ephesians and I Peter. The Ephesians passage commands husbands to love their wives and I Peter commands honor and respect. Is oppression present where love and honor exist? Wives being subject to their husbands originates in the Old Testament, and is continued in the New, but the difference occurs in the requirement of love and respect that is directed in the New.
If that were true, then why do women still suffer pain in childbirth? Why would the "coming of Christ trump" only one of these curses, but not the other?
Well, that's an interesting argument. However, it seems a bit of a hollow answer to me. To return to the definition of the term...
"Oppression is the act of using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another."
Is it really "loving" to keep someone silent, and to relegate their lives to a second-class status of silence and submission? Honestly, that sounds a lot like the "this is for your own good" mentality that has predicated a great many social evils thoughout human history. And respect? And how is it "respectful" to take to the position that an entire class of people is unfit to stand in a role of leadership? At best, the kind of relationship you are describing is dangerously co-dependant, and at worst just a lie designed to convince the women being oppressed by these beliefs that there is a good reason for them to "stay in their place."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"If that were true, then why do women still suffer pain in childbirth? Why would the "coming of Christ trump" only one of these curses, but not the other?"
Again the pain in childbirth is still commanded and carried out in the New Testament, therefore since it is stated in the New Testament, this pain is continued, just as the passages require the man to provide for his own both in the New and Old Testaments. The coming of Christ didn't trump all laws of the Old Testament, but it did trump some of them, read Matthew Chapters 5-11 and you will see many Old Testament laws that a carried over into the new, but you will also find that many are not carried into the new and therefore, according to the Christian perspective, followers are not bound to them. (see Colossians 2:14)
"Is it really "loving" to keep someone silent, and to relegate their lives to a second-class status of silence and submission? Honestly, that sounds a lot like the "this is for your own good" mentality that has predicated a great many social evils thoughout human history. And respect? And how is it "respectful" to take to the position that an entire class of people is unfit to stand in a role of leadership? At best, the kind of relationship you are describing is dangerously co-dependant, and at worst just a lie designed to convince the women being oppressed by these beliefs that there is a good reason for them to "stay in their place."'
As I stated in a reply to one of the other comments, the best critique to my argument would be that all of the Biblical writers were Men and all of them except for Luke were Jewish. Your argument could easily be applied in this context in that it may just be a matter of Jewish men trying to protect their power and authority throughout the ages. But the argument doesn't hold much weight for the Christian because the Christian believes that the Bible is the literal, inspired word of God. So a command such as that is viewed (by the Christian) as something that is in place to foster the best possible relationship between men and women. Indeed, it may be "for your own good", but the idea of faith will hold fast to this command.
But the argument you make about "for your own good", forgets to consider many things Biblically that are commanded, "for our own good", but you would hesitate to argue against these. (I Cor 6:19-20; I Tim 6:9-11; Gal. 5:17-21) Indeed, following some of these commands may exclude a person for as long as they follow the commands from certain rungs of social status or acceptance, or even in many cases not allowing that person to obtain a position of authority in a political office or in the workplace for that matter. Which, if we want to get into the definition again, followers of these commands are a class of people, and if following these commands denies access to certain areas of society, then indeed these followers are oppressed by the society which disallows them access for as long as they follow such laws. So would these other commands be "for our own good" if they subjected us to oppression by the society in which we live?
Neither do the most orthodox Jews today, who DO follow the laws in the Old Testament.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Then based upon the Old Testament commands, they aren't living according to the complete commands of the Old Testament. You can't make the claim that Jews follow the laws of the Old Testament, the only claim you can make is that Jews follow SOME of the laws of the Old Testament.
Some laws simply don't apply today, because they were only mandated for a certain place and/or time. The Passover sacrifice, for instance, was ONLY done in the first year, and was banned after that. Others were only applicable when the Temple was standing, and that was last destroyed in 70 CE... quite some time ago.
Things are much more complicated than you are making them out to be.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!