Who gets the extra ice cream?
A couple of weeks ago there was an evangelical Christian conference in Sydney “devoted to what it means to be a godly woman.” Oooh I know this one! It means to be obedient, submissive, subordinate, compliant, complaisant, “sweet,” deferential, self-effacing, and not at all in any way challenging to the Authority and Superiority of Men.
During a talk about the meaning of Bible verses on male headship — where men are leaders in the home and the church — an image of newly-shorn actress Kristen Stewart flashed onto an overhead screen.
Was this platinum blonde buzz cut, asked the speaker, Carmelina Read, appropriate for a woman? Was it feminine and submissive, or instead flagging independence and rebellion?
Women should have long hair to serve as convenient handles.
But what annoyed some of the thousands of women there was a claim that “women should also consider themselves ‘helpers’ of men in the workplace.”
Sure. Even if she has more talent, experience, education, and knowledge than the nearest man, she should consider herself his helper. Always inferior, you see; it’s god’s divine rule.
While it is generally accepted amongst conservative Christians that “headship” means women should submit to men at home and in the church, extending the idea to the world beyond is considered controversial, a form of mission creep.
So there’s a lot of arguing going on.
The doctrine of headship means, in short, that men are to be the heads of women in the church as well as in marriage. The verses being discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 say:
“… the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head — it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.”
The idea of headship has long divided Protestants in Australia, with the conservative pockets — where women are not allowed to be priests, such as the Sydney Anglican diocese, and Presbyterian church — adhering to it most vigorously.
Those who argue for male headship are called complementarians; the idea being that women and men are equal before God, but have different and complementary roles to play (as per literal interpretations of verses in Ephesians 5, where wives are told to submit to their husbands as their heads, and 1 Timothy 2, where women are told not to teach or have authority over a man).
By an amazing coincidence, that’s also the view of the Catholic church, bless its heart. Naturally this was just men dressing up their determination to be the boss of everything as somehow holy, but I think after all these centuries we can let it go now. Men are not the heads of women. Women have their own damn heads.
H/t Barry Duke
Don’t these two ideas seem to be a bit…contradictory? You cannot be equal if you submit to someone else as your head. YOU CANNOT BE EQUAL IF YOU SUBMIT TO SOMEONE ELSE AS YOUR HEAD. This is so bloody fucking obvious no one should have to say it.
Yes of course, but then there is the next lie in the religious repertoire: subservience has its own special dignity and value before god, so your earthly ideas of equality aren’t what we are talking about. Now, go make your man dinner etc. etc.
I saw somewhere that the odd Mormon pompadour thing, almost universal among polygamous splinter-groups, is dictated by a verse about a woman washing Jesus’ feet with her hair.
So the long hair is not just a handle, its a designated Last Judgement towel.
Well you see “before God” is one thing and “down here in the muck of earthly life” is another. That’s how that works.
I remember writing about this whole idea in Does God Hate Women? – specifically in reference to the Southern Baptist Convention and an encyclical. The popes love to burble about “complementarity.” I don’t remember if I addressed the “before God” bit in particular…
Chapter 3, in case anyone has the book and wants to look it up. I didn’t quote an “under God” bit (if my quick skim is accurate); I focused on the fog of bullshit the popes throw up by talking about the precious sacred holy god-ordained DIFFERENCE between women and men.
Well, I have the book, but not the time to look it up now.
This whole thing goes well above my head.
Maybe I need a haircut? (Yea, probably; not enough time though. And the dress wouldn’t fit)
An ice cream — OK.