Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I'm not sure I follow you...what is the "shame" you are talking about? 
    The shame of being raped or the shame of being a rapist?
    
    If it is the latter, well sheesh, s/he shoulda thought of the bible
    *before* s/he raped.  
    
    If it is the former, the problem seems not to be in paradox, but in
    the defining of raped as something to be ashamed of.  I'm not a bible
    expert, in fact I know very little; if you tell me the bible says it
    is a sin to make public that which is shameful about yourself, I'll
    believe you - but does it say that being raped is something shameful
    about yourself?  If so, the my philosophy and Christianity are so 
    grossly at odds that I can't begin to answer the question.  Many people
    feel ashamed after being raped, and that's awful, but if the bible
    doesn't *say* you should feel ashamed, then why should it be a sin 
    not to hide it, since it isn't an "official" shame?
    
    D!

    Cindy
    
    The old testament was written when women were men's property,
    and the shame was in the devaluing of an asset, i.e. a virgin
    or a wife.
    
    If you'd like you can borrow my copy of "The Chalice and the Blade"
    which goes into this subject in some depth (among many others).
    
    hugs
    
    Bonnie

    Cindy,
    I think D! has an excellent point.  Sadly, the majority of women who
    are raped do feel shame.  The attitude of "It's the woman who is at 
    fault when she is raped" is what creates shame.  I have a very loving 
    God and I personally don't believe that S/He would want a rape victim 
    to hide the crime due to shame.  This is strictly from a personal 
    viewpoint, but as an ACOA I would be in a whole heap of trouble if I 
    thought God didn't want me to heal my shame, which I can only do by 
    sharing it.
    
    Karen

    
    Perhaps you can think of it as shame for things you've done, not
    shame for things done to you.
    
    Although this doesn't ring true at all with the Marking of Cain.
    
    Why don't you post the passages in question... and also post the
    punishment of Cain...
    
    
    Kinda like if you beat your spouse, and your spouse goes around and
    tells everyone. You might be ashamed of your acts, but the Bible might
    be prohibiting you from telling your side. I can see that. I keeps
    people from vocalizing excuses for doing something blatantly wrong.
    
    But, Like D!, I'm not biblical scholar...

    Without looking it up first, I can't be sure, but I have some dim
    recollection of the passages in question referring to not bringing
    shame upon the Christian community. That is, if something bad is
    happening, take steps to remedy it quietly, without running around
    telling the world that Simon's a lecher or Ruth's a thief or whatever.
    In these days, I'd define it as escalating a problem through proper
    channels and refraining from gossip about it (as opposed to, say, going
    directly to the Geraldo Rivera show). *However*, it's painfully
    clear that in many cases, and for many offenses, "quietly going through
    channels" doesn't cut it - sometimes the only way to get help is to
    stand on the roof and shriek. [I don't think that's un-Biblical; after
    all, when serious measures were called for, some of those prophets made
    _major_ public spectacles of themselves... ;-)]
    
    -b

   >     Without looking it up first, I can't be sure, but I have some dim
   >     recollection of the passages in question referring to not bringing
   >     shame upon the Christian community. ...

    Since Proverbs (as cited in .0) is Old Testament, it wouldn't be
    the Christian community in question.

    It's worth bearing in mind (unless you're of the "every comma and
    semicolon infallible" mindset) that the society to which books
    like Proverbs were written was very different in many ways from
    present-day society, and then-contemporary cultural values and
    biases cannot help but be reflected in the writing.

Re: -1
     It would not be "just" the Christian community in question.  You
    are correct.  I must apologize for the oversight.  I did not wish
    to overstep the Torah or Talmud in the discussion.
    
    Re: Text
    
Following is a list of some of the verses I am trying to work on.
Immediately afterwards, is the interpretation that I see in it.

*Proverbs 11:13
*A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of faithful spirit concealeth
*the matter.

If you discuss openly hidden abuses you are a gosip,
faithful individuals would not talk.  So, we should not discuss what
is/has gone on in private.

*Proverbs 11:29 
*He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

For incest, rape, or work environment- rooting out the trouble can/will
break your house, spousal relationships, environment down to nothing.
If you do not, maybe it will pass?

*Proverbs 24:29 
*Say not, I will do so to him as he has done to me: I will render the man
*according to his work.

The desire to repay violence, inconsideration, impropriety with the
same is bad.  It should not be stated or required. Must transgressors
go free? Vindictive or compensatory desires against criminals/harrassers
are not correct. It is G-d's job to handle this, and not the job
of earthly entities.  But how does that apply with police? personnel? 

*Proverbs 25:2
*It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to
*search out a matter.

It is g-dly to hide transgressions, but worldy attempts to investigate
a problem.  If you wish to plead to the lessor authority, you will
press for formal investigation.

*Proverbs 12:16
*A fools wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame. 

You are a fool to display shame/anger at actions performed against you.  
A wise person keeps it hidden.
However, the nature of negative actions against people requires that
it be opened up. So you can not persue and not be considered a fool.

---------------------------------------
I know, it is somewhat jumbled and unclear.  But each of these leads
me do some form of Paradox. I am not a true scholar either, I am
searching for answers.  The answers I am seeing are painful.  

Does anyone else see this?

Cindi
    
    

    Yet another reason I do not believe the bible to be inerrant, and the
    work of God.
    
    And no, Cindi, I do not swear on a bible if I have to go to Court.  One
    of the things Quakers generally do not do is take oaths.  When I served
    jury duty, I affirmed.
    
    E Grace

Cindi, here's a another possible interpretation.  

*Proverbs 11:13
*A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of faithful spirit concealeth
*the matter.

Don't engage in gossip about other people.  Don't blab to everyone
about problems with other people.  Try and deal with that person and
work it out directly if possible.  Don't take revenge by telling
everyone about something that happened between you and someone else
(ie, in a spirit of vengence).

*Proverbs 11:29 
*He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

Don't cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble.

*Proverbs 24:29 
*Say not, I will do so to him as he has done to me: I will render the man
*according to his work.

Again, I think this applies more to the spirit in which things are
done?  Is it out of vengence and hatred or love and compassion.
Obviously, there are people that are dangerous in their present state
(in my belief due to how they were raised - including pre-natally) and
how they are treated by society or whatever).  Again, what is our mind
state in dealing with these people?  Compassion or hatred?  Even
acting out of compassion, people may have to be restrained.  In
today's system, however, there is very little compassion.  This goes
for the victims too.


*Proverbs 25:2
*It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to
*search out a matter.

Not sure what this means.


*Proverbs 12:16
*A fools wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame. 

I think of more as self-shame.  In other words, it usually
not necessary to advertize our own blunders.
    

*Proverbs 11:13
*A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of faithful spirit concealeth
*the matter.

A talebearer breaks the trust of a confidence, to betray the secrets of a friend
(or family member).  The abuser has broken that confidence, by definition, in
the first place.  The abuser has broken the law, even biblical law.  I don't
believe the Bible orders us to conceal a crime.

*Proverbs 11:29 
*He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

Who is troubling the house?  not the abused child.  the abuser can and should
inherit the wind.  The abused child is not doing anything shameful or blame-
worthy.

*Proverbs 24:29 
*Say not, I will do so to him as he has done to me: I will render the man
*according to his work.

This one's inscrutable.  But remember, the Bible also says "an eye for an eye".
And I don't think even this quote says you must take what's dished out, no
matter what.  It's a noble goal, to return good for evil.  I can't always do it.

*Proverbs 25:2
*It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to
*search out a matter.

:-) GOD is inscrutable.  It is for us to try to understand the mind of God.
Good luck!  it's impossible, by definition.

*Proverbs 12:16
*A fools wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame. 

A fool's wrath is inneffectual.  Prudence guides us to a more effective response
(we hope) to offenses we are offered.

Cindi, my own take on it is that you can find what you want in the Bible.  This
same work that tells us "love (me) thy God with all thy heart" etc, also says
"go thy way, eat thy bread with joy and drink thy wine with a merry heart, for
God hath already seen thy works."  I don't expect to ever find The Answer(s).
I seek anyway.

and though it offers guides for living right, the Bible does not promise anyone
justice (except in the long run) or a lack of suffering.  only redemption and
the chance to serve God.

Sara

    A thought provoking topic, and some excellent interpretations and
    comments.  I have some thoughts; will enter them when I've
    mulled a while longer.
    
    aq
    

    The supremacy of the individual over the group is a relatively
    new concept. In every form of tribalism, the group takes precedence
    over the individual. Or, the harmony of the community takes
    precedence over the rights of the victim. (Rights are the property 
    of individuals.)
    
    As a avowed individualist, I would say that a community which allows
    it's members to be murdered, raped, etc. has no right to exist
    in peace and harmony.

>Don't engage in gossip about other people.  Don't blab to everyone
>about problems with other people.  Try and deal with that person and
>work it out directly if possible.  Don't take revenge by telling
>everyone about something that happened between you and someone else
>(ie, in a spirit of vengence).

    However, is it ok in the spirit of fear/as well as compassion?
    Is court prosecution (for rape), or personnel prosecution (for
    work harrassment)?
    

> Don't cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble.
    
    Does that apply within the rhelms of harassment or rape?
    
>Again, I think this applies more to the spirit in which things are
>done?  Is it out of vengence and hatred or love and compassion.
>Obviously, there are people that are dangerous in their present state
>(in my belief due to how they were raised - including pre-natally) and
>how they are treated by society or whatever).  Again, what is our mind
>state in dealing with these people?  Compassion or hatred?  Even
>acting out of compassion, people may have to be restrained.  In
>today's system, however, there is very little compassion.  This goes
>for the victims too.
    
    So as long as the victim has no revenge motive, In your opinion,
    the text does not apply?  The victims are to have compassion for
    their transgressors?
    

>I think of more as self-shame.  In other words, it usually
>not necessary to advertize our own blunders.
 
    So, with regard to the topic at hand, since it is not his/her fault
    or blunder the text does not apply?
    
    
    Cindi   

    

    
    I agree with .11, some excellent interpretations here.
    
    This may not apply, but I'd like to add that some things
    from the Old Testament are refuted in the New. For example,
    "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Though this kind
    of law was accepted in the Old Testament (when we were
    at a time in which we needed this sort of response), Jesus condemned it
    in the New. 
    
    Try to see the situation in which it was said. And if something
    in the Old Testament bothers you, see how Jesus addresses it
    (assuming you are of some Christian faith). I find it hard to
    believe that Jesus would advocate concealing the truth, but rather
    not screaming non-relevant things to cloud the intent of the
    truth (making it more of a personel decision).
                                                       

>Proverbs 24:29 
>Say not, I will do so to him as he has done to me: I will render the man
>according to his work.

do not attempt vengence in the "eye for an eye" manner - another words, do
not attempt to exact vengence yourself by acts of violence; rather, uphold 
the law and "render the man according to his work" by prosecuting the abuser
as the law of the land dictates.  

    
    I like to follow the spirit of the bible (or any other religious book
    that appeals to me) rather than the letter.
    
    Decrypting what was written, rewritten, and reinterpreted so many
    times, by so many people, with so many different ideas and ideals is so
    complex.  
    
    Read a passage.
    Listen to your inner voice.
    See what echoes in you.
    Form your own interpretation.
    
    Wrangling over what the bible did and did not mean feels to me like
    arguing over what our favorite colors are.  Yours is not mine is not
    hers is not his.  Why must there be only one interpretation?
    
    My interpretations are gentle, and full of good karma.
    I do not believe in a God who torments mercilessly, or blames victims,
    or seeks silence where words would heal and help.  
    
    -Jody
    

What exactly is the text of the "an eye for an eye" quote? I have read it -
I don't remember exactly what it said, but unless I'm wrong, it was in
reference to the *law*.  That is, the law should exact no more punishment
from wrong-doers than the wrong they did.  It did *not* say that an individual
should avenge himself "and eye for an eye".

I don't think the passages against vegeance are in conflict with the
"eye for eye" quote...

D!

I always thought the "eye for an eye" came from the Code of Hamurabi,
not the bible old testament.

DougO

Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Leviticus 24:20
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath
caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deutoronomy 19:21
And thine eye shall not pit; but life shall go for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

All old testament references.

The index references one New Testament in Matthew.

    Cindi
    

>Exodus 21:24
>Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Context??

D!

RE:  Eye for an eye.

Thanks for posting the quotes Cindi.

I interpret this an an alternate statement of the principle of karma.

Leviticus 24:20
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath
caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Not that we should take an eye if someone has blinded someone but that
the person will suffer for causing suffering in others...

The Deuteronomy verse isn't all that apt - it's in a section talking more
about sanctuary. The Exodus verse is relevant, but is in a section that mostly
just lists crimes and their punishments. The Leviticus verse I believe is the
most relevant. Here's its context:

Leviticus 24:17-22

    And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.  And he that
    killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.  And if a man cause a
    blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
    Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a
    blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.  And he that killeth a
    beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to
    death.  Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for
    one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

But in the New Testament (The Sermon on the Mount [Matthew, chapter 5]) all
that is changed, here is the relevant portion:

Matthew 5:38-48

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
    tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
    smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if any man
    will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak
    also.  And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
    Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn
    not thou away.  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
    neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
    bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
    them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
    children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise
    on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
    unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
    even the publicans the same?  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do
    ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?  Be ye therefore
    perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

A pretty high standard.

	-- Charles

Context-

Exodus 21:22-25

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so
that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow:
he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband
will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow then thou shalt give life for life,

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe
for stripe.


----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Cindi

    I have only gotten as far as .8, at which point I pulled down my Bible.
    
    I would refer you to Prov. 11:2, which states "When pride cometh, then
    cometh shame."  For me, so long as the victim's attitude is not a
    prideful, puffed up, vengeful seeking of retribution, there is no shame
    attached to reporting that evil has been done to you.
    
    Also consider an interpretation of "house" or "household" which is more
    metaphysical than most of us are used to.  I think of my house as my
    refuge, my place of safety, my protection from storms (both physical
    and emotional).  That doesn't need to be a physical place, it can be a
    state of mind.  When someone is continually battering me, am I in a
    place of safety?  Do I have a "household" which still applies?  I don't
    believe so.
    
    Alison 

re: .23

There is a severe hampering of communication involved with quoting from
the King James Version of the Bible.  Words do not mean to us what they
meant to the scholars living in 1611.  According to the OAD, mischief
(in the late 20th century AD) means this:

    "conduct (especially of children) that is annoying or does slight
    damage but is not malicious"

This is a far cry from what the passage in Exodus means; the word used
in the old texts from which today's current translations are made means
"serious injury."  Once the serious nature of the damage is understood,
the idea of tit-for-tat punishment (note, no mention is made of revenge)
becomes more meaningful.  And punishment of the kind prescribed can only
happen if the offense is made known; hence, covering up a serious injury
done to you is counter to the code as given.

The "eye for eye" is from the Code of Hammurabi, it is also from the
Duodecem Scriptae, the Twelve Tablets of ancient Rome, in which it is
called "lex taleonis," the law of retaliation.  That's the same term
used by legal types today.

-d

    I only had the King James with me today.
    I will try to have the New Jerusalem, NIV, or some more modern
    english text for future reference if it is preferred.
    
    Cindi

Cindi, I definitely prefer a modern translation when dealing with issues
of interpretation.  For beauty of reading, I'll take the KJV any time.

If others prefer to interpret using the KJV, I can deal, but I fear that
those not into the subtle semantic differences inherent in linguistic
evolution will find some of the discussion somewhat obfuscated; and, as
we are all inherently imperfect communicators, the fewer obstacles we
throw up for ourselves the better.

:-)

-d

    re .7
    >For incest, rape, or work environment - rooting out the trouble
    >can/will break your house, spousal relationships, environment down to
    >nothing.  If you do not, maybe it will pass?
    
    Read Leviticus 18:6-29.  These passages specifically deal with incest
    and forbids sexual relationships with close family members.  18:29 says
    "Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such person must be
    cut off from their people.  Keep my requirements and do not follow any
    of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do
    not defile yourselves with them.  I am the LORD your God."
    
    Hebrews 13:4
    Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for
    God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
    
    My interpretation of these passages is that God clearly condemns sexual
    immorality.  By today's standards that would include incest, rape and
    harassment (and fornication, adultery, etc).  In Leviticus he states to 
    cast out the offender.  In researching this in my Bible dictionary, the 
    interpretation there is to put the offender to death.  My interpretation 
    of Hebrews is that God will judge the offenders and will do the 
    punishment.  
    
    I could not find anywhere in either the Bible, Bible dictionary or
    concordance that talks about the shame of victims nor could I find
    anywhere that the victim is blamed for sexual immorality.  
    
    As an afterthought, I looked up confession.  1 John 1:9 says, "If we
    confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins
    and purify us from all unrighteousness".  Could shame and the anger
    that accompanies shame be a sin?  Even though I don't have clearly
    defined thoughts around this, it seems to me that God wants us to
    confess these feelings to him so he can purify us and relieve us of the
    negative feelings and fill our lives with happiness, joy and freedom. 
    Hmmmmm...interesting thought to ponder....................
    
    Karen

*WARNING*  This in NOT for the squeemish!
    
    From Mary Daly "Beyond God the Father" (C) 1973
    
    Chapter Four:  The Transvaluation of Values: The End of Phallic
    Morality  pp. 114-117
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
THE MOST UNHOLY TRINITY: RAPE, GENOCIDE, AND WAR

The first dimension of what I have baptized as The Most Unholy Trinity is 
rape.  It is clear that there has always been a connection between the 
mentality of rape and the phenomenon of war, although there is much unseeing 
of this connection when the was is perceived as "just."  An example within 
recent times was the horrible treatment of the women of Bangladesh.  Many 
hprrendous stories came out at the time of the civil war between East and West 
Pakistan, but scant reference was made to "the heartbreaking reports that as 
many as 200,000 Bengali women, victims of rape by West Pakistani soldiers, had 
been abadoned by their husbands, because no Moslem will live with a wife who 
has been touched by another man." 29  Joyce Goldman, a writer who discovered 
such a reference buried in a postwar "return to normailty" article, decided 
that if male reporters would not investigate, she would attempt to do so.  The 
experience of reading her account is unforgettable.  A Pakistani officer is 
quoted as saying:"We used the girls until they died."  Many of the women 
imprisoned in barracks (to be used by soldiers as "cigarette machines," as one 
government official described it), tried to commit suicide.  Goldman cites 
reports of a town named Camilla, near Dacca, where women were raped and then 
thrown from rooftops like rubbish.  "One eight year-old girl who was found too 
child-small for the solidiers' purposes was slit to accomodate them, and raped 
until she died." 30  Goldman points to the obvious cruel irony in the fact 
that these victims were then abandoned by their husbands as unclean, which is 
an obvious corollary of looking upon women as objects and possessions, for 
then they must have inly one possessor.  Most significantly, she hsows that 
the concept of a raped woman as damaged is only a morbid exaggeration of "our" 
own attitudes, for the women of Bangladesh have suffered "collectively, 
exaggeratedly what individual women in this and other 'advanced' countries 
know from their own experience."31

One way of unseeing this is to protest that it happened in another culture, in 
a Moslem country.  Readers who react this way should be interested in an 
article that appeared in the New York Times, November 19, 1972 (L, p. 47).  
The item reports the death of a seven year-old girl, who, together with her 
nine year-old sister, was lured by three teenafgeged boys to the roof of a 
South Bronx tenement by a promise of pizza.  The younger girl was raped and 
thrown off the roof to her death.  The older sister was sexually molested but 
escaped.  Police described her as "hysterical." Most of the rest of the same 
page of the New York Times was occupied by an enormous advertisement for the 
Saks Fifth Avenue Men's Store.  The ad is a picture of three very cocksure 
males in stylish sport clothes accompanied by three bulldogs.  The words of 
the ad:

There is something about and S.F.A. man. You can spot him anywhere....Even his 
idlest comments are eminently commanding....

It does not require too surrealistic a leap of imagination to associate the 
three "emminently commanding" males and their three bulldogs with the three 
teenaged males who raped the seven year-old girl and threw her to her death.  
After all, the latter, too, were "emminently commanding."  In a rapist 
culture, this quality expresses itself in a variety of ways.

"Informed" Christinas and Jews may protest that rape and brutality are alien 
to our own heritage.  The reader, then, should refer to biblical passages 
which tell a different story, namely that there is a precedent for looking 
upon women as spoils of war.  In the Book of Numbers, Moses, after the 
campaign against Midian, is described as enraged against the commanders of the 
army for having spared the lives of all the women:

So kill all the male children.  Kill also all the women who have slept with a 
man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, 
and take them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

The story continues:

Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh had ordered Moses.  The spoils, the 
remainder of the booty captured by the soldiers, came to six hundred and 
seventy-five thousand head of small stock, seventy-two thousand head of 
cattle, sixty-one thousand donkeys, and in persons, women who had never slpet 
with a man, thirty-two thousand in all. (Numbers 31:31-35)

In Deuteronomy, the advice given to the Hebrews is that when they go to war 
and yahweh delivers the enemy into their power, they may choose a wife from 
among them.

Should she cease to please you, you will let her go as she wishes, not selling 
her for money: you are not to make any profit out of her, since you have had 
the use of her. (Deuteronomy 21:14)

Even outside of the context of war (if such a context is imaginable in a 
patriarchal world), the value placed upon women in the Old Testament is 
illustrated in the story of the crime of the men og Gibeah.  A man woh was 
giving hospitality to a Levite and his concubine was having dinner with them.  
Scoundrels came to the house demanding to have the guest, in order to abuse 
him.  The response of the host was to offer them his daughter as substitute 
for the guest.  The devoted father is reported to have said:

Here is my daughter; she is a virgin; I will give her to you.  Possess her, do 
what you please with her, but do not commit such an infamy against this man. 
(Judges 19:24)

Since the visitors refused this offer, the guest gallantly offered them his 
concubine as a replacement for himself.  They raped her all night and she 
died.  Tastefully, the guest, when he had returned home with her, cut her into 
twelve pieces and sent those around Israel with a message about the crime.  
The text offers no negative judgement upon the host or his guest.  The crime 
was seen as an offense against men, not agianst their female property.

NOTES:

29  See Joyce Goldman, "The Women of Bangladesh," MS. I (August 1972), p. 84.

30 Ibid., p. 88.

31 Ibid., p. 88.

A different translation, as requested from the Jerusalem Bible
    Reader's Edition.
    
    Context-

Exodus 21:22-25
If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant
and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man
responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman's master;
he shall hand it over, after arbitration.  But should she die, you shall
give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and for hand, foot for
foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.


    --------------------------------------------------
    In KJV master is husband.  I guess loosely, if we allow a woman to
    be her own "master" today, then she shall determine what is to be
    done in the event of this particular wrong.
    
    As for other wrongs, the texts and stories indicated in the previous
    replies do not indicate a very positive message for females.
    
    Just as a minor example,  this text does not handle the case when the 
    woman's "master" is her husband.  Does this then, by omission here,
    and in many other cases, act as a sanction for violence/negative
    action against women?
    
    --- There is a joke that goes.
    
    "Women & Slaves should have an owner's manual."
    "There is one, check the Bible."
    
    The question still stays.  With the exception of incest, as
    pointed out in a previous reply, unmarried women are not protected in 
    the texts. Any wrong that comes to them, has only prayer as direction for
    compensation.
    
       I guess we will just have to pray VERY hard.
    
    Cindi
    
    
               

hmmmm.  Cindi, your reply (.31) reminded me of the Hebrew word ba'al, which has
three meanings:
	ba'al	the idol worshipped by certain non-Hebrews
	husband
	owner
context determines actual meaning; the idol being a much-disused meaning
nowadays.

sigh.

Re. .32:

Is that 

Ba'al

bet alef alef lamed? (A random guess).

Are there students of the Tora that could check the verse to verify
if this word, or some close derivative appears in the original text?

Cindi
    

I think yes, Cindi, beyt aleph aleph lamed.  THis is based on my learning Hebrew
orally on a kibbutz, though, not on actual scholarship.  I *think* it's right.
Bobbi "deadlines R us" can help?  

Sara

Meaning:

	a non Hebrew god
	owner
	master
	husband

If I have time tonight (and remember), I'll look up the passage in
Exodus in my Hebrew Scriptures, and provide the exact language.

I suspect that the word used *is* ba`al, with the meaning "master/husband";
remember, many women were concubines, rather than "wives", and the rule
was probably intended to cover both.

I used to drive the Kibbutzniks crazy with this.  In modern Hebrew, the word 
"Isha" means both "woman" and "wife" (surprise, surprise :-(, so I always 
used to use the word "Ish" [man] to when speaking of a husband :  "but you
mean 'Ba'al'" -- "No, I don't think he owns her!"

Bobbi "I'm doing this while waiting for my test driver to finish its deadline" 
    Fox

    RE: 30 Mary Daly and the women of Bangladesh
    
    Amnesty International has established a women's campaign in recognition
    of this type of war crime, committed against women by government forces 
    all over the world. The Bangladesh situation is unfortunately not rare. 
    I will soon have information about this in GAMBLN::AMNESTY. The UN 
    Convention on all Forms of Discrimination Against Women will not be coming 
    up for ratification in the U.S. this year, as I previously reported in 
    this file, but the women's campaign is in full force.
    
    Eileen
    
      

    Uses of ba'al not indicating the Phoenician god, from the NIV:
    
    Exo. 21:22	"...but if there is no serious injury, the offenders must
    		be fined whatever the woman's HUSBAND demands and the court
    		allows."
    
    Exo. 21:28  "... But the OWNER of the bull will not be held
    Exo. 21:29	responsible.  If, however, the bull has a habit of goring
    		and the OWNER has been warned...the bull must be stoned and
    		the OWNER also must be put to death."
    
    Exo. 21:34	"...the OWNER of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay
    		[the animal's ] OWNER, and the dead amimal will be his."
    
    Exo. 21:36	"However, if...the OWNER did not keep it penned up..."
    
    Exo. 22:8	"But if the thief is not found, the OWNER OF THE HOUSE must
    		appear before the judges..."
    
    Exo. 22:11	"The [ animal's ] OWNER is to accept this, and no
    Exo. 22:12	restitution is required.  But if the animal was stolen from
    		the neighbor, he must make restitution to the OWNER."
    
    Exo. 22:14	"If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is
    		injured or dies while the OWNER is not present, he must
    		make restitution.  But if the OWNER is with the animal..."
    
    Deu. 21:13	[ Of a woman captive taken in war ]  "... After she has
    		lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a
    		full month, then you may go to her and be her HUSBAND and
    		she shall be your wife."
    
    Deu. 24:4	"...then her first HUSBAND, who divorced her, is not
    		allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled."
    
    Jud. 19:22	"...they shouted to the OLD MAN WHO OWNED THE HOUSE, "Bring
    		out the man...so we can have sex with him."
    
    2Sa. 11:26	"When Uriah's wife [ Bathsheba ] heard that her HUSBAND was
    		dead, she mourned for him."
    
    Job 31:39	"if I have devoured its yield without payment
    		    or broken the spirit of its TENANTS,"
    
    Pro. 12:4	"A wife of noble character is her HUSBAND's crown."
    
    Jer. 31::32	"It will not be like the covenant
    		    I made with their forefathers
    		when I took them by t he hand
    		    to lead them out of Egypt,
    		because they broke my covenant
    		    though I was a HUSBAND to them..."
    
    Joe. 1:8	"Mourn like a young woman in sackcloth
    		    grieving for the HUSBAND of her youth."
    

    Re:  Ba'al and ownership
    
    I think we may be up against a problem of foreign-language semantics.
    Consider that in Jeremiah 31:32 (see my prior reply) the Lord God is
    seen declaring that he held himself as a husband to the Israelite
    people -- are we to assume that they were his property?  I think not.
     
    As much as we study *any* foreign language, we never grasp all the
    subtleties of its meanings.  Furthermore, any given word can have
    myriad different meanings depending on context, date of usage, and so
    on.  Even in our native languages, we often don't understand all the
    possible meanings of a word; I'd pick on Annie's use of "tart up" in
    the "Do you like your name?" string as an example.
    
    If there is one among us whose *native* language is Hebrew and who has
    made an in-depth study of the evolution of Hebrew, that person would be
    the one to give us a more accurate answer as to the connotations of
    "ba'al" -- do we have a taker?
    
    -d

    My own view, in response to the question of whether or not the people
    of Israel were considered Yahweh's property, is that the answer is 
    yes, at least as far as the prevailing theology of some of the prophets
    of the time was concerned.  Along those lines, here is a summary that I
    wrote some time ago of a Pendle Hill pamphlet on how the ancient
    religious metaphor of Yahweh's "marriage" to his people was related to
    a patriarchal and abusive concept of marriage in general.  I have
    already posted this in two other notes conferences, but I since it
    relates directly to this question of patriarchal religious values and
    rape, I'll repost it here:

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 11.4                       Feminist theology                       4 of 113
CSC32::M_VALENZA "Note with innuendo."              131 lines  20-SEP-1990 11:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last January, I posted in the Religion conference the following note,
    which summarizes the contents of an interesting pamphlet that is
    published by Pendle Hill, a Quaker study center:
    
    
    Yesterday I received in the mail a copy of a pamphlet that I had sent
    away for.  The pamphlet, published by the Pendle Hill (a Quaker study
    center which publishes essays in pamphlet form once every two months)
    is titled "Batter My Heart", and is written by Gracia Fay Ellwood. 
    This fascinating essay discusses the biblical images of God as a
    patriarchal marriage partner.  The author discusses the version of this
    image presented in the Christian scriptures, though she focuses on how
    the ancient prophets conceived of Yahweh as the husband in an
    authoritarian marriage with Israel as the bride, and compares this
    conception of a patriarchal "marriage" with what we know about
    violently abusive patriarchal marriages between men and women.  The
    implications of this analogy are disturbing, and the author suggests,
    among other things, that this traditional image should be altered.

    The author states in the introduction:

	The cause of equality, justice, and peace requires...a deep-level
	understanding of the bases of hierarchy, oppression and violence;
	and an important source of these evils in our culture is, unhappily,
	the Bible, the very source that has often inspired its readers to
	oppose them.  I do not refer only to its influence upon those
	Christians and Jews who consider it absolutely authoritative; the
	Bible has done much to shape Western culture as a whole, to influence
	commonly-held views as to the proper relationship between male and
	female, between ruler and ruled, between the Divine and human.  Its
	effect has been ambivalent, tending to put out the fires of violence
	and oppression by day while relighting them by night.

    In her essay, after briefly discussing some of the male images of Yahweh
    in the Bible, she then considers the specific example of the symbolism
    of marriage used by the prophet Hosea:

	In order to understand Hosea properly, one must know the outlines in
	Canaanite thought of a sexual relationship analogous to a Sacred
	Marriage.  According to the texts found at Ras Shamra (ancient
	Ugarit) since 1929, the union of Anath, a Goddess of high sexual
	energy, with Baal, the bringer of order and the rain-giver, was
	feted especially after Anath defeated Baal's enemy Mot (the power of
	drought and death which prevailed during the hot summer), and
	brought Baal back from the dead.

	The Ugaritic texts are dated many hundreds of years before the work
	of the prophets, and Anath is scarcely to be found in the Hebrew
	Bible.  The biblical Astoreth seems analogous to her.  In any case,
	it is very likely in reaction to such a sexual relationship between
	two Deities that Hosea and the prophets after him developed instead
	a Sacred Marriage between Yahweh and Israel.  Contrasting strongly
	with the union of Baal and Anath, who are both very powerful in
	their own right, the Covenantal marriage is unequal, decidedly
	patriarchal, with Yahweh being the husband and Israel the wife.  The
	prophets never reverse the image.

    The theme of Yahweh the abusive and authoritarian marriage partner
    recurs over and over again.  Worship of Baal or other deities is
    considered an act of adultery, to which Yahweh responds with some sort
    of violence, usually resulting in oppression of His people,  until a
    repentant Israel returns to Yahweh.  The author, in startling ways,
    compares this to the patterns of behavior in abusive marriages, as
    described by various researchers (Lenore Walker, Del Martin, Roger
    Langley and Richard Levy).  Specifically, the prophetic imagery of
    violent retaliation expressed for Yahweh by the prophets is often quite
    disturbing.  Ellwood describes how overkill, jealousy, possessiveness,
    rape, and child battering are all expressed by Yahweh--mirroring the
    traits often identified by these researchers to be characteristic of
    violent marriages.

    Ellwood then offers her theological criticisms to those images.  She
    explains that she is "not undercutting or rejecting all that the
    prophets have given us, but applying the prophetic critique to the
    prophets themselves."  She suggests that the possessive images of
    "adultery" and "fidelity" are themselves theologically suspect.  She
    further argues that the prophets' denunciations of social oppression
    contradict the oppressive images of Yahweh that they advocated.  She
    points out that this image of divine justice was inappropriate, because
    of "the failure of the unfaithfulness metaphor to meet the complexity of
    the religious and political situation":

	Israel was not one woman, who either "did" or "didn't", but many
	persons, some of whom engaged in Canaanite worship while others did
	not; some of whom exploited the poor, while others did not (or were
	the exploited).  The violence of Assyria and Babylon, though
	striking with particular venom at the powerful, also destroyed many
	defenseless and innocent.  The metaphor is a theodicy, an attempt to
	justify God in the face of this great horror:  how could our
	righteous God, who promised to cherish us and preserve our royal
	line, do such a thing?...

	Nonetheless, the poor fit of these and similar images was suspected
	early.  For the "wrath of Yahweh" to retaliate with murderous
	violence against guilty and innocent alike was no improvement at all
	on the original situation of class exploitation and violence.

    Finally, she argues that this image of God as the patriarchal husband
    "is unacceptable because it encourages tendencies to violence and
    domination in human husbands/fathers."

    Her essay continues with other images of God, including the image of
    female Wisdom and certain patriarchal aspects of the New Testament view
    of the Church as the bride of Christ.  She then discusses, with
    admiration, the one book of the Bible that celebrates an egalitarian
    marriage, the Song of Songs.  Arthur Waskow, I might add, has also
    praised this work for similar reasons in his own writings.
    
    Ellwood discusses the need to reimage God:

	Can we continue to use male images for God in the old manner without
	implicitly supporting patriarchy?  Can we use any hierarchical
	images for God (either male or female), or any images of submission
	for humanity, without in some way fostering oppression?

	I see no way that we can do so and remain loyal to our
	testimonies...

	Images of inflexible hierarchy are equally unacceptable, whether
	they be "Queen" or "Lady", or genderless terms such as "Sovereign"
	or "Ruler;" further, references to ourselves as "servants" of God,
	or the life of the Spirit as "Holy Obedience" are likewise
	unhealthy.  Gender-free images of temporary hierarchy, such as
	derive from teacher-student or guide-follower relationships, are
	less questionable, if also less powerful.  The same could be said of
	God as "Parent."

    This is only a brief summary of Ellwood's essay.  It is a fascinating
    work, and well worth the $2.50 I spent to purchase it.

    -- Mike

I'm no expert at Hebrew (as you've all seen! :-) but since I brought it up, I'll
point out that there are NO experts in ancient Hebrew.  There are scholars,
but they study a dead language.  Modern Hebrew is almost certainly unlike the
ancient language -- in pronunciation, in context, among other things.  For ex,
there are two letters for the 's' sound, and one of those letters is also used
for the 'sh' sound when marked in a certain way. In modern Hebrew the 2 's'
sounds are  the same, but why would there have been two letters for the same
sound in the ancient language, if they were not different sounds that we no
longer distinguish?

Another example is verb tenses.  Just as there are tenses in French with no
English equivalents, in Hebrew there are present, past, future, and conditional
tenses.  That's it.  You simply cannot express "I will have gone" without going
to a lot of extra verbiage!

But Dick is right about the uses of language, and words.  Hebrew has no word for
'shallow' (or so I was told).  You can say a lake is not deep, but you can't
say it is shallow.  English has no equivalent to the French word 'chez', though
'place' (ala 'Jane's place') has been used.  In the examples he cited, there
were two that brought me up short.  The "old man who owns the house" (who should
come out and get raped!!!!!) -- did the "old" part and the house as the object
of ownership come from context?  And the image of God as husband to the whole
people, well that goes right along with the Hebrews as the chosen people, and
if you think about it you'll see that God treated the Hebrews just like an
ancient husband treated his wives -- property, do what I say, believe as I say,
because I am.  Reminds me a lot of the book of Job.

What we can think, how we can understand the world, is partly determined and
defined by the concepts our language can encompass.  Cindi, is this what you are
trying to discover, in questioning the words and concepts used in the Bible
to describe how shame should be handled?

    Re : .41-
    
    I was trying to see where and how the topics on the title of this note,
    and the subsequent behaviors/ interaction of our society was described/
    percieved/ interpretable against the texts.
    
    Attempting to answer questions like...
       Is the reason battered wives have such a hard time of it, because
    a large segment of our society is based on, or derived from a
    particular text... and that text doesn't make provisions against it.
    
    The same with harassment??? The same with incest ??? The same with
    rape???
    
    I have seen some interesting interpretations here.  Some are
    comforting, some are disquieting.
    
    
    ... As to the individual that did not believe that G-d allowed
    bad things...  I can not agree.  If that were the case, these
    things would not exist in the first place.  He definately allows
    them.  I was just looking at the texts, trying to figure out what
    things apply and what must be done AFTER he has allowed them.
    
    
    Cindi

    Cindi,
    	i'm not sure i'm on the track you were seeking, but perhaps i can
    offer additional light (illumination).  In the tradition in which i was
    reared - one of the Judeo/Christian varients - the counsel of the Bible
    had to be taken as a whole.  In some cases that meant some apparent
    conflicts had to be resolved; i was taught that New Testament teaching
    ALWAYS superceded any conflicting Torah counsel.  Of course, that is a
    moot point to any non-Christian.  Nevertheless, there is some support
    within the pre-Christian scriptures, for the notion that the Mosaic Law
    was given for a people who were so hard-hearted that they would not
    deal honorably with each other - let alone, strangers - unless they
    were constrained by narrow rules.
    	I don't have scripture handy to quote exact chapter/verse, but here
    are some principles i've absorbed from much study.
    	Wherever possible disputes between believers should be resolved
    privately.  The assumption is that infidel courts are less qualified to
    deal in true equity, which would include spiritual factors (eg: intent).  
    	Calling an assault, even by a spouse, a "dispute" may seem 
    incongruous here, but remember, we're talking _principles_ here,
    not cast_in_stone rules.  
    	Keep in mind that believers were counseled that husbands were to
    love their wives even as Jesus loved the Church.  I find NO example
    ever mentioned where Jesus slapped around any of his followers.
    	Believers were also counseled to be (rough paraphrase - i think)
    gentle as lambs, BUT wise as serpents.  A believer is not obligated, in
    spite of the "turn the other cheek" message, to submit to abuse.  One
    is not to seek revenge, but one is justified in protecting oneself
    against depredation.  That certainly includes exposing the perpetrator,
    if that proves to be the only available remedy.
    	Perhaps none of this fits the original intent of (.0), but it is as
    close as i could fathom.
    	[dale]
                                                   

    
.30 -
    
Thanks for entering that enlightening passage...I'm tempted to call Mary
Daly and thank her too. (Can she really still be employed at Boston
College?!) 

I believe Susan Brownmiller, in her book Against Our Will (about rape), 
also has a lot to say about the subject of women as spoils in war.	

<set just a tad annoyed here on>
    
Rape, enslavement, murder, hacking to bits...it seems there's ample
precedent for the view of Woman as Pond Scum, right in our very own western
religious/mythological symbol system...does anybody know whether the actual
treatment of Woman as Pond Scum began before the view became p.c. in said
symbol system, or did the latter lead to the former, instead of simply
perpetuating it? 

I especially like the following quote:

"If... the tokens of virginity are not found in the young woman, then they 
shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and
the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones because she has
wrought folly... so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
                                        Deut 22:20-21

-- can you say "commodification of women's sexuality"? (that is, if you're 
still alive?)

Back to the Goddess,  ;-)

Dorian
            
<anon, anon>

re: -1

I have this theory:

it is reasonable to assume that the female's vulnerability to the greater
strength of the male in very primitive tribal structures set the precedents
for "modern" man's domination of women.  Women were physically weaker, and
therefore became the spoils of war and, most probably, the first slaves.
A woman in primitive tribal society was hampered by pregnancy and
NEEDED the support of other non-pregnant individuals in order to find food
for herself immediately prior and subsequent to childbirth.  A dedicated male
companion was the ideal solution to this problem.  He never got pregnant
himself and he was stronger and more able to protect her and the child from
predators, etc. However, there had to be some mechanism to "hold" the male's 
dedication while the woman was vulnerable..

from this need, it is my opinion, the rituals of binding a woman to a man
in order to grant him sole access to her sexually - the earliest forms of
marriage - evolved.  The benefits the man gained from this relationship were
sole access to the woman and knowledge that the offspring from such a union
were his own....and they would, therefore, feel obligated to help HIM survive
when/if he should become vulnerable, and someone to maintain his "property"
while he hunted or warred.  The woman got a chance to survive...if
she managed to survive pregnancy.  She also got the job of raising the children
and tending the man's posessions.  The early rituals which defined roles 
within the tribes and explained frightening or beneficial events evolved 
over time into religeons...Religeons defined by males and designed to offer 
the most direct benefits to the males.  Benefits to women were mostly 
incidental.  While some religeons evolved with strong female fertility icons, 
they invariably had also stronger male warrior/hunter icons as well.  While 
early humans perceived the birth of children as important, the role of the 
hunter/warrior was perceived as more immediately beneficial to the tribe's 
survival....and more powerful.
 
It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that religeous writing was affected 
by the "mindset" of the writers...ergo, you have male-dominant religeons.....

    Actually, this is my theory, based upon reading Sharon Welch, Rosemary
    Radford Ruether, Judith Plaskow and Mary Daly's work on the subject.
    
    In pre-agrarian societies, the role of women within the spiritual lives
    of the communities were powerful.  Linked with the Great Goddess, whose
    power was that to grant life, women held sole possession of the most
    mysterious and sacred forces, those which granted life itself.  Their
    roles as exemplars of the Goddess' power gave them power within the
    society.  While roles may have been divided along gender lines, these
    roles were equivalent in power and importance (see Aboriginal society
    in Australia)
    
    Now when the agrarian age hit us and permanent, stationary communities
    were established, two things happened.  The first was the obvious
    creation of town settlements that required some form of governance. 
    Government of any form is an essentially structuralist nature, and
    structuralism, the use of hierarchies and meritocracies, are key
    elements of our modern patriarchal communities.
    
    The second process is more complex in theological terms.  Agriculture
    meant, for the first time, people exerted control over nature.  The
    forces of fertility and growth were harnessed to fit human needs.  In
    the eyes of the societies at the time, this meant that the Goddess,
    while still powerful and potentially dangerous, could be managed and
    controlled.  For the women in this context, that may have proven
    disasterous.  Many agro-societies have mythologies of how the women
    once controlled the sacred rituals, but the men usurped that power and
    have kept it for themselves.  In that light, women's fertility, as an
    expression of the Goddess' power, became something that men needed to
    harness and control.  What grew out of this was a growing sense of
    women as inherently dangerous to male authority that led eventually
    into the Judeo-Christian representations of women as represently a base
    "carnality"  The classic dualism is women being of the body and men
    being of the soul that formed out of the separation of fertility from
    the holy.
    
    They banished the Goddess.  I say we need her back.
    
    just a few cents worth...
    
    \D/