(no subject)

[grysar]

First off, Happy Birthday to reene. I really need to give you the present that kamalloy and I got, but I keep forgetting to. We should work out a dinner sometime soon.

Second, interesting [Addendum: Sadly the link is down due to the controversy, I'll see if I can find it elsewhere] feminist critique (spoilers) of Children of Men. Although it gets overpopulation wrong. Overpopulation is on its way out as an issue. Yes, the world's population will still grow, but it's probably going to top out at around 10-11 billion so long as current trends stay in place (the rate of growth is dropping). Now there's going to be a real youth bulge problem in the Middle East, Indonesia, and a few other countries so that is a real overpopulation issue. But in much of the developed world as well as China are going to have to deal with aging problems. America is actually doing okay on that score because of immigration. Thematically, the movie is dead-on on this issue even if it doesn't focus on the facts of it.

This review is the subject of some controversy because it resulted in the writer resigning from the Edwards campaign.


The controversial bit:

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

It drew an attack by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. I dunno if that's true, perhaps Bill Donohue's Catholic League could explain their interpretation. You know what would be a great PR move, they could have a female priest that's a member of the Catholic League do it. That would really show this blogger. Oh, wait...

Anyways, more seriously, I think the "generally interpreted" line is an overstatement. I haven't heard that interpretation in any ELCA Church that I can remember. Although, Lutherans aren't known for focusing on the virgin birth or Mary. But it raises an interesting question, is Zeus going around knocking up various Greek women less patriarcal than the birth narrative in the Gospel? I mean in the myth there's obviously some sort of sex going on, even though it involves animals or a ::cough:: golden shower. [Addendum: Zeus often involved rape, so that would certainly be far more patriarichal.]

By odd coicidence, I'd actually read an interesting defense of the Vagina Monologues by an nun using a pseudonym. It's worth reading in its own right, but here's the relevant bit.

The polarization of the sexes that is so deeply imbedded in Catholic thought needs to be reassessed. Perhaps the most damaging has been the characterization of women as either “virgin” or “whore”, epitomized inthe Church’s on-going comparison of Eve and Mary. Throughout the centuries, women have been continually reminded that they are intrinsically a cause of sin and ruin for men just as Eve was the cause of Adam’s ruin, and therefore, the human race. The Virgin Mary, on theother hand is presented as the New Eve, whose cooperation with the Blessed Trinity in our redemption completely reversed the effects of Eve’s choice.

A Childish Notion

To compound that problem even further, many theologians have taught that Mary’s virginity not only applies to Jesus’ conception, but also to His birth. In other words, some still cling to a belief that Mary did not deliver Jesus vaginally as every other mother delivers a baby and that her hymen remained intact. Though not a dogmatic or official teaching—as is the virginal conception ofJesus—this childish notion has embedded itself into Catholic imagination and theology and continues to have an impact today. An early written source for this belief is a second century text which the Church never accepted as authentic called The Protoevangelium of James.In this text the tale is told that as Joseph is returning with a midwife to Mary, they together witness a miraculous birth. The midwife has to ensure for posterity’s sake that Mary has indeed not delivered the baby vaginally, so, much like Thomas did to Jesus

Now that interpretation is super-patriarcal. Although I don't think it's the general one.

And as a closing note, my favorite inconsistency with the virgin birth is that I'm pretty sure at least one of the gospels has Mary being impregnated by the Holy Spirit. To me, that definitely confuses the whole God the Father thing. Ah, the Trinity, is there anything it can't explain?

Hat tip: Matt Yglesia for the blogger bits and Andrew Sullivan for the nun bits.

Comments

[laechim.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly sure that Zeus going around and raping/impregnating women is seen as patriarichal. >_>

As to 'generally interpreted', I'm fairly sure the left out words are 'among people who actually bother analyzing texts/power structures/etc. for patriarichal messages' (see your snark about Catholic female priests.) Those people... aren't generally the majority of churchgoers. To be a bit reductionist and sarcastic... God sends an angel, says, 'I'm gonna knock you up, and it's gonna be awesome for society, so you should do it' Mary says, 'Your will be done,' tada, the great celestial penis succeeds! Women as vessels, women as 'having children for the good of society', blah blah blah blah. It's a strongly patriarichal mindset that is reflected.

It's only particularly controversial in that criticism of religion in any way is quickly classified by hate speech by various generally loud sub-segments of that religion. Consider his response:

'Anyone who actually believes that the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary is ‘generally interpreted’ as being a sexist exercise obviously lives in an anti-Christian ghetto. The 85 percent of Americans who are Christian do not believe this, and most of the other 15 percent do not either. Only those who think ill of Christianity could write such insulting commentary.'

Note the framing shifting from the impregnation (icky) to the birth of Jesus (Good News!), the jumping on 'generally interpreted' without the benefit of the context (IE: people who actually interpret things), the appealing to the silent majority, and the belief that only anti-Christians could consider it patriarichal (Sweet! I'm now a Christian hater!) (Note how it's not a Catholic Hater. More appealing to the silent majority.) Heck, academia/female studies is now an _anti-Christian ghetto_. Apparently, only poor people who also hate Christians believe in patriarchy in the bible or something.

I'm waiting for a poor persons rights activist to step up and slam Donohue. And waiting. And waiting. :P

-Mecha

[grysar.livejournal.com]

"I'm fairly sure that Zeus going around and raping/impregnating women is seen as patriarichal. >_>"

Err, yes. The whole Persues thing may well have been consensual but Heracles was based on a deception (shapeshifting to the form of the husband). I forget whether the others were consensual.

I think you're probably right on what she meant to say, although I didn't pick up on that context when I read her review. (Unfortunately, because of the controversy, the initial link seems to be down). So I think that critique is the one and only fair point of the complaint. On the rest of it, I think you have his framing techniques down cold. However, his personal interpretation is in all likelihood highly patriarcal. So probably, if he was being accurate, the most he could say is that "She seems to think that Christians are generally as bigotted as I am. That's simply not the case." She could have avoided even that critique if she used your wording.

[laechim.livejournal.com]

The issue with 'my wording' being what she has to use is that it's... well, audience. And this gets into a general longstanding issue I sometimes have with the feminist community, but essentially, when you're writing to a specific audience, such as 1) the people who read your blog 2) where you have a purpose and establishment statement stating the context in which it is written (as many specific feminist blogs do, although not all of the ones I've had the crap kicked out of me on at the time), then some things are understood. In a sense, it is a 'professional' audience. The fields of study it involves have their own jargon, generally held beliefs, etc. As an example, a scientist might say that Evolution/Global Warming would have the same problem in phrasing. They are generally accepted among people that actually, uh, think about this stuff, but a lot of people think there's a debate. Similarly, the dominant feminist interpretation of the bible? Patriarchy everywhere. 'Generally interpreted' indeed.

Taking issue with 'generally interpreted', the only particularly well arguable part, which requires ignoring the audience, as meaning she hates Christians is ultimately nonsensical. But because you can attack 'generally interpreted' by acting like she said it to a general audience, they're trying to sneak in hatred by the side door (she's wrong about that => SHE HATES CHRISTIANS), and it's just not _there_. It's an attempt to further poison the well... but I covered that in the framing stuff. Anyway.

This isn't an isolated incident, and the organization has been pulling quotes out of context for this particular blogger for a week and change. It's a hack job, pure and simple. ^_^; Take someone's actions, twist them into beliefs you don't think people will like, and spread the word.

-Mecha

[grysar.livejournal.com]

I buy this. You don't have to convince me that Donohue is a hack and this argument is a hack job. And I now think I have a much better feel for the context. Even so, I'd dispute the science analogy.

"In a sense, it is a 'professional' audience. The fields of study it involves have their own jargon, generally held beliefs, etc. As an example, a scientist might say that Evolution/Global Warming would have the same problem in phrasing. They are generally accepted among people that actually, uh, think about this stuff, but a lot of people think there's a debate. Similarly, the dominant feminist interpretation of the bible? Patriarchy everywhere. 'Generally interpreted' indeed."

The distinction I'd make is that the professionals who interpret biological data and climatology data to draw larger theories are scientists. Even among opponents that's fairly accepted as a given and why they try to prop up opposing supposedly scientific theories. By contrast, feminists are only a subset of the professionals who intepret the Bible.

Even so, it's a legit short-hand so long as it's widely understood in the community. Far be it from me to define every communties' jargon. However, I don't think the public discourse really cares about the audience that you're writing for. So if someone wants to work for a politician and be hired based on his or her blog work, that person has to be prepared to defend that work as if he or she was writing to a general audience.

Fortunately, most people don't want to work for politicians. :P

[laechim.livejournal.com]

Maybe you're right that there are biblical scholars that would not agree with their interpretation (if they'd even considered it before.) I don't do enough biblical scholarship. But...

1) ... the people in question are in the habit of interpreting texts, and are often trained in it. And the bible is just another text.

2) ... that is definitely not the audience that Donahue was saying had considered and rejected their interpretation (in fact, classically in Catholicism, it isn't really your job to interpret the bible. It is your job to shut up and take the interpretation you are given, so to speak.) I buy your interpretation, but at best (IE: he is using it) it just points out that he's being disingenuous again by purporting that it's 'reasoned' disagreement by the masses', when really it's just 'the mindless masses don't think it's sexist.'

I think she can defend it (frankly, if I could, and she couldn't, it would be a strange world), but she isn't getting the _chance_ to defend it. 'You're a bigot' being screamed at the top of someone's lungs is not _defensible_. And I would argue that one could not, similarly, turn that standard around in all other areas of expertise. Nobody's expected to act like things that aren't written to a general audience are written to a general audience. Well, unless they work in the humanities. Everyone thinks they're an expert on the humanities.

(And thank something for that.)

-Mecha

[grysar.livejournal.com]

1) I'm not quite sure which people you mean here. But I do consider people trained in interpreting other texts to be perfectly qualified to interpret the bible. It's just the people the feminist media analysis community is a subset of the larger text interpretation community.

2) True. He's a lying scumbag.

I think she can defend it. I just think that the different audience point isn't a particularly effective defense. I think she's better off just saying "I meant generally interpreted by feminist critics, I said this was a feminst critique at the start after all." I was annoyed by the rumors that she was going to be fired and I generally approve of the counter-punch approach. It's just that while I think your defense is accurate, I don't think focusing on the audience question is effective at convincing the large public.

And I'd disagree with your point that "Nobody's expected to act like things that aren't written to a general audience are written to a general audience." I think opposition researchers will be happy to go through past controversial statements of any public figure and find things that sound like they might be controversial. Now there's probably a lot of things that would go over the heads of a general audience, but those statements aren't likely to be controversial unless they sound crazy pretentious.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

The public at large that is. Hopefully I haven't offended our nation's obese community. :P

[ninjadebugger.livejournal.com]

Note that just because she wasn't necessarily being retarded this time doesn't mean she hasn't been retarded before (which she has, and pretty frequently. People have been digging into the wayback machine, as you can see here.)