![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Islam and Patriarchy: A Comparative Perspective
Women in Middle Eastern History, 1991, pp. 23-42. Deniz Kandiyoti
( Excerpts... )
Some of my thoughts:
- Initially, under a strict patriarchal system, women were unable to break out of the system. Thus the best way for them to cope was to adapt and succeed within the system. This gave women no real, tangible power, but allowed them to acquire influence among themselves (i.e., women created their own hierarchy within their subjugated status under the patriarchal system).
- With the onset of the sexual revolution and gender emancipation, women were given the chance to break out of the system. Many chose to do so, resulting in the loss of meaning of "male chauvinism." In another passage of the article, men were referred to as "dispossessed" when emancipation turned "men's economic protection of women—which is central to Muslim men's claims to primacy in the conjugal union—into a myth."
- Men, however, were not the only ones dispossessed. Women were impacted too, as shown in the Chinese women example. This became the foundation for explaining why in light of "freeing" women, many women remained staunch supporter of "traditional" ways, even when those "traditional" ways restricted their freedom.
- My question is this: Consider modern day, North-American Christianity. Many "fundamental" women remain vocal about keeping the male-as-head household concept, often referring to verses for biblical support. Yet in Gender and Grace, Mary Van Leeuwen shows that the North American paradigm of a "traditional household" is actually a post-industrialism phenomenon, with more of a cultural basis than a biblical one. So can we say, then, that women who defend male dominance do so out of a (subconscious?) fear of losing what little power and influence they have to newfound power obtained by "emancipated women"? Are they defending a created religious ideal without realizing that it is culture they are attempting to preserve?
Admittedly, this approach is entirely sociopolitical and does not take one's spiritual conviction into consideration. But I find this a valid argument in case studies of Muslim context, and visibly applicable to Christianity as well. Any thoughts?
Women in Middle Eastern History, 1991, pp. 23-42. Deniz Kandiyoti
( Excerpts... )
Some of my thoughts:
- Initially, under a strict patriarchal system, women were unable to break out of the system. Thus the best way for them to cope was to adapt and succeed within the system. This gave women no real, tangible power, but allowed them to acquire influence among themselves (i.e., women created their own hierarchy within their subjugated status under the patriarchal system).
- With the onset of the sexual revolution and gender emancipation, women were given the chance to break out of the system. Many chose to do so, resulting in the loss of meaning of "male chauvinism." In another passage of the article, men were referred to as "dispossessed" when emancipation turned "men's economic protection of women—which is central to Muslim men's claims to primacy in the conjugal union—into a myth."
- Men, however, were not the only ones dispossessed. Women were impacted too, as shown in the Chinese women example. This became the foundation for explaining why in light of "freeing" women, many women remained staunch supporter of "traditional" ways, even when those "traditional" ways restricted their freedom.
- My question is this: Consider modern day, North-American Christianity. Many "fundamental" women remain vocal about keeping the male-as-head household concept, often referring to verses for biblical support. Yet in Gender and Grace, Mary Van Leeuwen shows that the North American paradigm of a "traditional household" is actually a post-industrialism phenomenon, with more of a cultural basis than a biblical one. So can we say, then, that women who defend male dominance do so out of a (subconscious?) fear of losing what little power and influence they have to newfound power obtained by "emancipated women"? Are they defending a created religious ideal without realizing that it is culture they are attempting to preserve?
Admittedly, this approach is entirely sociopolitical and does not take one's spiritual conviction into consideration. But I find this a valid argument in case studies of Muslim context, and visibly applicable to Christianity as well. Any thoughts?
