[email protected] 805-875-5153
Sivilla 1024x547

Why are Christianity and patriarchy incompatible? The traditional roots of rape

Spread the love

Why are Christianity and patriarchy incompatible?

Patriarchate, by definition, is "the power of the father."

According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, patriarchy is a society in which men are the “dominant element” in family, economic, and social life.

The patriarchal family community consisted of 3-5 generations of paternal immediate family members, descendants of one ancestor, with the wives of men of this group. It could include up to 200-300 people. Her life is led by a family council. The property of the family community is indivisible and inalienable. Such a patriarchal family community is gradually degenerating into a paternal large family with unlimited father power.

In the modern, common sense, patriarchy is not at all about the authority of the father, but the “patriarchal society” is not at all about a society of joint property, where the older man leads the younger, and the council of the oldest manages it. In the modern sense, patriarchy is androcracy, the power of men, the social structure in which men occupy leading positions in public and political life.

However, modern “fighters for the patriarchy” not only want this – they want a “real patriarchy” so that the woman returns to the legal position that she had before the emancipation.

Do they want further restoration of the patriarchal society? If they want a woman to become the inalienable property of her husband, do they want to go into life submission to their father, grandfather, the advice of the oldest, kind? Do they want the abolition of private property in favor of public property? Or let's rewind a little back in time, but not so much?

The argument of the modern "fighter for patriarchy" – it has always been like this, is so – historically true, so – primordially, "these are natural roles." So “a little rewind” is not good, for “originality” you need to rewind where you couldn’t choose your wife yourself, or go out of the village without your father’s permission, or decide whether to plant rye or millet for you this year.

Therefore, the patriarchy is truncated, the patriarchy in the modern sense is a purely modern concept. This is a system that has not survived from an old time – it is just a name for the temporary stage of transition from the real patriarchy, which is described in textbooks, to something new, because if changes in society have begun, they will continue. What they will be is a separate issue, but the current state of affairs is not eternal if we are Christians and therefore believe in history.

It is said that there are words in the Bible that support patriarchy.

Consider this statement from two sides: 1) whether the Bible can support patriarchy in the full sense of the word; 2) can it support the modern version of the "patriarchy"?

An excerpt from Paul, which is always quoted: “I also want you to know that Christ is the head of every husband, the husband is the head of the husband, and God is the head of Christ” – he tears the Christian family out of the social fabric of patriarchal society. A wife and husband, and only Christ and God above them – this is a very modern, nuclear family, in contrast to the patriarchal family, which does not exist on its own – organized by the community (conspiracy marriages) for the purposes of the entire community (reproduction of the community, preservation of community property )

If a traditionally patriarchal family is created by the community for the purposes of the community, Paul orders marriage “for the avoidance of fornication”, for the sake of a personal, selfish purpose. Moreover – Paul leaves the option of a skoppy, lonely life, you can not marry at all.

If a traditionally patriarchal family did not exist for the marriage goals, but for the sake of preserving the community, and therefore could not not exist – marriage cannot be abandoned – Paul advises Christians not to marry at all, calling it the best share.

So, patriarchal marriage is violent, Christian marriage is voluntary; patriarchal marriage is required; Christian marriage is optional; the patriarchal family is built into the community, does not exist outside it, the family according to Paul is the wife, husband and Christ immediately above them. The patriarchal family is for the benefit of the community, the Christian family is for the benefit of the spouses themselves.

Families form a community. But if the patriarchal family is inseparable from the extended family-community, the Christian family is a separate, self-valuable atom. What will be a society consisting of atomized, free families and non-family people – ascetics, scribes?

I think what our secularized society is today. Modern “western” society is a consequence of the Christian, Pavlovian view of the family. A monogamous family – or many non-family people, the spread of asexuality.

Here's a little more about “family values” from Christ:

“And one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brothers stand outside, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said to him: Who is My Mother? and who are my brothers? And, pointing with His hand to His disciples, he said: Behold My mother and My brothers, for whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven will be My brother and sister and mother. ”

The society, which will consist of ascetics and family people according to Paul, is precisely that society in which the fulfillment of the will of God, love between people who are no longer gentlemen and slaves, no longer men and women, but “all one in Christ ", The way the Church is described.

Since Paul actually describes marriage and does marriage have a “patriarchal” in the modern sense, and a “patriarchal” in the modern sense of society have something in common with Paul's intuitions?

At first glance, yes. Paul writes about the hierarchy in marriage – let the wife obey the husband, the husband Christ. But here it is necessary to pay special attention to the part "let the husband obey Christ."

Christ Himself repeatedly showed his attitude towards women – in the case of Mary and Martha, in the case of the harlot, in the case of the woman who "blew".

Christ, who said that “married be like unmarried,” “I have nowhere to lay my head, so will you” – how can “submission to Christ” be manifested in relations with a wife?

We do not know what meaning the first Christians put into “obedience to Christ”. One thing is clear – you can not apply this scheme “let the wife obey the husband, and the husband Christ” in the modern context, when “obey Christ” is reduced to the external observance of several commandments to choose from. The Pavlova commandment ceases to work.

And yet this does not explain why Paul nevertheless left the woman in a position subordinate to her husband. The wife's slavery is the burden of sin (Genesis), but did Christ remove this burden?

As we have already discussed, the family according to Paul creates a society different from the traditionally patriarchal one. A society in which there will be a place for atomized units – married couples and co-creatures, which will consist of them. A society built on the principle of the primacy of the good of the individual and then the common good, not the good of society. The church is no longer a family, the church is a reorganized family, the church is the body.

And since the Christian family, although it is a self-valuable unit, does not exist outside the Christian community, outside the Church, outside Christ, over time this community realizes the other Pauline intuitions in the family itself: “there is neither man nor woman in Christ”.

Thus, not only the family “makes a society”, but the Christian society “makes a family”, introduces Christian intuitions into it – equality, “there is no man or woman”, transparency “when you trample the shell of shame”.

There are two passages: “let the wife be submissive to her husband” and “in Christ there is neither man nor woman”. We can say that the second “about the spiritual” “in a figurative sense” “don't take it literally” (which means “ignore”), or you can try to put it in a single picture: we have a historical one (let the wife be submissive to her husband) and have a futuristic (and within the framework of the Church that will be embodied, there is no longer a wife and a husband). The church will penetrate the family – "let the wife be submissive to her husband" will go into "there is neither man nor woman."

Saint Clement of Alexandria reports (see Agraffe) that when Jesus was asked whether “all this will come soon”, He answered: “When you trample the shell of shame, and the two become one, the male and female will no longer be male or female female. "

And again: does modern spiritless Western society look like the Church according to Paul – “neither men nor women” rhyme with “not a woman, not a man – that's what a European is!”

This is how Pavlov's prophecies unfolded in history. The emancipation of a woman transgressed one commandment of Paul in order to fulfill his other aspirations.

If you go from the opposite and take “let the wife be submissive to her husband” as an imperative for all time, “in Christ there is neither man nor woman”, you really have to ignore (in other words, to say that this is in a spiritual sense, you just didn’t understand , it’s in the church, and reality is different). Following this, Christ’s sermons can be ignored – because there are only metaphors and it’s clear that all this has little to do with reality. And the wrath of the Old Testament God can be attributed to the literary tradition.

But to ignore this idea and at the same time accept the freedom of the couple from the fathers and the clan – this seems to be too illogical even for the most ardent fighter for the patriarchy.

I already called “modern patriarchy”, in which society is no longer an extended family, but men are in leading positions in the social and political life of society, only a transitional stage from a patriarchal society in the classical sense of the word to something new. What are the reasons for this transition – a topic for extensive analysis: it is now important for us to understand that this is not an “ideal world”, and even more so not “always been like this”, but only a historical stage, which will also pass as the tribal system passed. Christianity led to the decomposition of the tribe, and who knows what will become of our modern "patriarchy" in a few centuries.

The traditional roots of rape

Susanna was spied on by two Jewish elders. Threatening to accuse her of adultery, they forced her to have sex. She refuses; she is sentenced to death. At the last moment, the prophet Daniel saves her. The author of the picture –
Artemisia Gentileschi – was raped in her youth.

A couple of years ago, we discussed with a friend the problem of rape. She said that although the blame for the crime lies with the rapist, if a woman dresses immodestly, then part of the blame lies with her. I replied that rape is by definition a violation of the will of the other to inviolability. Only this action. The rape of a prostitute is also a rape if she said no. Girlfriend did not agree.

How is that?

Why can people from a seemingly Christian culture say this?

There is a moral traditional, patriarchal – this is the moral of the object. Here there is “unclean”, “bad”, “fallen”, and “pure”, “honest” (from the word “honor”). Two equal poles. Pure is unclean, heaven is earth, man is woman. An object is either worthless or unusable, or bad, or good, or clean, or defiled.

And there is a morality, say, Western. Man is not initially “bad” and not “good”. Man – feels pain and pleasure, man thinks, man is not a thing, man is a process.

The traditional morality from the outside can look very attractive. Strong men, modest women. Western morality may look decadent – a European often appears as an effeminate seeker of pleasure, no more. But is the "traditional" man so strong? And is Malala Yusufzai or Iranian human rights activists so pampered?

So why rape “can”?

If a girl is an “unclean thing” – she can be added, dishonored even more. If the girl was pumped with drugs – she is unclean – a pure girl will not allow herself to go out with guys – she can be raped.

It is bad to rape a virgin not because she is in pain, but because you will make the “clean” “dirty”.

By the way, do you feel analogies with modern prison culture? Touch a spoon or plate of "lowered", and you yourself will "fall." Not because you yourself raped someone, but simply because you became "unclean."

Just like in the Gospel: “Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person” – just the opposite.

In the West, two hundred years ago, Negro slave labor was used. But did you know that American scientists of that time tried to prove that blacks are not people, but another species of animals? This is objectification. He is not a person, he is only a thing, a bad thing.

You see, the Americans already understood that it’s impossible to hurt a person, but for the sake of their interests they tried to make a man – an animal, so that it was still possible?

I love the Soviet film "Mountain novel". A Chechen is trying to rape a Russian woman, another Chechen sees this, shoots the first and reassures the girl. Does not shame, does not avoid, does not defame. Soothes, takes to the village. She is not “Russian”, not “herself to blame”, not “walking here in jeans” – they hurt her, she needs help. Everything.

And further. They say that in the West everyone is so immoral, they have sex before the wedding. However, it is precisely Western “immorality” that does not allow one to do evil – a maiden gets fucked before the wedding or not, and one cannot beat and force her. And in “moral societies” one can do evil – well, only with the bad ones – with women, non-believers, foreigners there, too fat, too thin, you-to-blame-all-that-I-want-to-eat.

A source

Subscribe to the Predaniya.ru channel on Telegram so as not to miss interesting news and articles!

Join us on the Yandex.Zen channel!