args

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Thanks for accepting; let's get started! Short version: 1. Equal rights for women; that sounds good. 2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old. 3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former. Long version: 1. Equal rights for women; that sounds good. Let's start with quotations from the World Bank [1]: "Empowering women and girls is not only the right thing to do: It’s also smart economics and vital to ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity" "evidence shows that resources in the hands of women boost household spending in areas that benefit children". Or we might turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [2]: "Closing gender gaps benefits countries as a whole, not just women and girls" Or perhaps you would accept the verdict of the UN [3]: "When more women work, economies grow" "increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit children" "Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth" "A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for every one additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 per cent" Poverty and gender inequality seem to be strongly correlated. Societies in which men have most of the power and women are seen as second class citizens are often the poorest; we must be careful not to fall foul of the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy, but it seems to be a universal message from all the World's organisations who have seriously tried to tackle poverty: empowering women is one of the most powerful ways to help a region out of abject poverty. I am firmly behind the feminist cause (both in the poorest and richest nations). I am partly proud to call myself a feminist because ensuring equal rights for women is the right thing to do, but also because it is the sensible thing to do. 2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old. Much of the bible was written about 3,500 years ago, in the Bronze Age; times were, as one might imagine, very different from today. Gender inequality was a way of life; women were considered virtually the property of their fathers until they were married, then they were considered virtually the property of their husbands - and it was absolutely clear what their "purpose" was, to provide their masters with offspring. Things were so different than today; by way of example, I suggest that the gentle reader consider the situation of a married man sleeping with his neighbour's wife. How would we respond to this situation today? I imagine that the sympathies of the modern reader are foursquare behind the man's wife and the man's neighbour, who have both been cheated on. The view at the time was very different, seeing the woman as property whose offence was not to be considered (indeed, I don't think that the Bronze Age man would think that the wife would be offended that he'd slept about)... the biggest sin in Bronze Age eyes, of course, being that the man who was cheated on would not know whether any children produced by his wife were actually his. It is important to understand this World view when one reads Job 31:9-10 [4] 9 If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, 10 then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her. It strikes me, at least, that there is very little sympathy for the wife in this meditation of Job's. It seems that the wife must perform acts to atone for the Husband's misdemeanors (because this would hurt the husband). Now, it wouldn't be right to sit in judgement of morals from one hundred and seventy five generations ago, of course, but neither would it be right to adopt them today. 3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former. So, this is what I want to know (I feel confident Con is about to explain): Why would anybody think that it is a good idea to allow what may well have been the pinnacle of philosophical, spiritual and moral thinking from over 3000 years ago in a small region in the Middle East to govern how we structure our modern societies today? Please understand that I am not averse to taking the good bits from this World view, of course, where they can be suitably ported to a modern setting; and yet I cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of Or we might turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [2]: "Closing gender gaps benefits countries as a whole, not just women and girls" Or perhaps you would accept the verdict of the UN [3]: "When more women work, economies grow" "increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit children" "Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth" "A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for every one additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 per cent" Poverty and gender inequality seem to be strongly correlated. Societies in which men have most of the power and women are seen as second class citizens are often the poorest; we must be careful not to fall foul of the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy, but it seems to be a universal message from all the World's organisations who have seriously tried to tackle poverty: empowering women is one of the most powerful ways to help a region out of abject poverty. I am firmly behind the feminist cause (both in the poorest and richest nations). I am partly proud to call myself a feminist because ensuring equal rights for women is the right thing to do, but also because it is the sensible thing to do. 2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old. Much of the bible was written about 3,500 years ago, in the Bronze Age; times were, as one might imagine, very different from today. Gender inequality was a way of life; women were considered virtually the property of their fathers until they were married, then they were considered virtually the property of their husbands - and it was absolutely clear what their "purpose" was, to provide their masters with offspring. Things were so different than today; by way of example, I suggest that the gentle reader consider the situation of a married man sleeping with his neighbour's wife. How would we respond to this situation today? I imagine that the sympathies of the modern reader are foursquare behind the man's wife and the man's neighbour, who have both been cheated on. The view at the time was very different, seeing the woman as property whose offence was not to be considered (indeed, I don't think that the Bronze Age man would think that the wife would be offended that he'd slept about)... the biggest sin in Bronze Age eyes, of course, being that the man who was cheated on would not know whether any children produced by his wife were actually his. It is important to understand this World view when one reads Job 31:9-10 [4] 9 If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, 10 then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her. It strikes me, at least, that there is very little sympathy for the wife in this meditation of Job's. It seems that the wife must perform acts to atone for the Husband's misdemeanors (because this would hurt the husband). Now, it wouldn't be right to sit in judgement of morals from one hundred and seventy five generations ago, of course, but neither would it be right to adopt them today. 3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former. So, this is what I want to know (I feel confident Con is about to explain): Why would anybody think that it is a good idea to allow what may well have been the pinnacle of philosophical, spiritual and moral thinking from over 3000 years ago in a small region in the Middle East to govern how we structure our modern societies today? Please understand that I am not averse to taking the good bits from this World view, of course, where they can be suitably ported to a modern setting; and yet I cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of feminism and still be considered a good bit. Over to you, Con! [1] http://www.worldbank.org... [2] https://www.imf.org... [3] http://www.unwomen.org... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com...