In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups - the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders... These are their stories.
These are the opening words countless numbers of us hear on a regular basis when we watch Law and Order. Go slowly, read them again. You know the funny thing is, I've never once heard an Egalitarian/Religious Feminist complain about this, but when it comes to Sexual Orthodoxy . . .
Kamilla
5 comments:
I am not quite sure I am following the analogy or the connection with critiques of Sexual Orthodoxy.
I will note that I used to be a district attorney, and I don't recall any defense attorneys submitting to me. Also, I was always free to switch roles at any time consistent with my preferences and talents.
-- Maggie Fox
Hi Maggie,
In Evangelical circles one often hears that women are "unequal in being, yet different in function or role" and religious feminists argue against this, recalling the arguments against "separate yet equal" segregation. They say separate yet equal isn't equal.
But here we have Law and Order saying it *is* possible to be separate (DAs and Police) and yet equally important. I am sure you recognize in your experience that policework is vitally important to prosecuting a case and yet there is a sort of hierarchy present where the DA's office has the control over what is prosecuted and how.
I think, in some ways, we can see this as analagous to marriage - it's something I'm working on and will write more later.
How interesting that you were a DA! My old college roommate is a First Assistant Attorney General here in Colorado - in criminal appeals. She even carries a badge now!
Kamilla
Kamilla,
Being a prosecutor was a wonderful and interesting job, despite all the depressing scenarios. Never had a badge, although my boss wanted me to get a siren at one point so that I could speed to crime scenes!
I absolutely agree that individuals can be separate and occupy different roles in a hierarchy, yet be of equal value and importance. (I also see that as a fundamentally Jewish and Christian concept, one which I much admire.) But I don't think it follows from that concept that hierarchy is always a good thing.
Feminists do not object to hierarchy in marriage because they think that the woman's role in such a marriage is without value. (I would say most feminists think that homemakers do quie a lot of work for a lot of value!) I object to the idea of hierarchy in marriage, because it is intrinsically unfair. It would require my permanent submission to my husband based solely on sex, and without any opportunity to advance in the hierarchy or to change roles. Complementarianism also ignores the individual gifts and preferences of the men and women involved in favor of blanket directives based on sex.
There is no analogy to such a hierarchy in modern society. The police officer submits to my authority in certain discrete matters, but his submission is temporary. If he would prefer my role, or if he feels he is better suited to my role, he can go to law school. Or if he doesn't like me telling him what to do, he can leave his job. The submissive wife, in contrast, owes lifelong submission to her husband and is not permitted at any time choose to take the leadership role instead. This hierarchy affects the entire course of her life, and is not just confined to the accomplishment of certain discrete tasks. There is no way to change the hierarchy or get out of the hierarchy.
I understand that the husband under such an arrangement also has obligations to the wife. The question for the woman as an individual is whether having a man fill the provider/protector role is worth it. The feminists and I say no, some women say yes, and other women say it is ordained by God so it doesn't really matter what any of us think.
Regards,
Maggie
Hi Maggie,
Just a few quick points in response here.
First, I would agree that hierarchy is not *necessarily* a good thing. However, I would have to disagree with your assessment of the value most feminists put on homemaking. In fact, some leading advocates of feminism have been known to say that if homemaking is an option, "too many" women will choose that option!
Your assessment of the intrinsically unfair hierarchy within marriage is correct - from a worldly point of view. Christians, however, have to learn that God's ways often differ from our views or rightness or fairness and even our assessment of our own gifts and abilities.
Kamilla
Kamilla,
Thank you. Sorry for my tardiness in checking back in here.
I concede that some feminists have said unkind things about homemakers. Linda Hirshman comes to mind. She has been vigorously criticized in the feminist community for this.
But the underlying concern with "too many" homemakers is a concern for women. Hirshman herself would say the problem with "homemaking" is that it is a bad bargain (in a worldly sense)FOR WOMEN that women often feel they have to make due to religious beliefs, cultural assumptions, or economic pressures. Hirshman's argument is that the more women give in to these pressures, the more likely that nothing will change, and the less likely that homemaking will become a truly voluntary (and probably more respected) choice for people (regardless of sex) who truly relish that life and who trust the partners on whom they will necessarily have to depend in order to fulfill that role.
All of my arguments and beliefs are worldly, as I am not a religious feminist. When it comes to Chritian belief, I will not argue in this forum.
Hope you are enjoying your vacation!
Maggie
Post a Comment