TOC
Previous
Next
2.10 Job as Feminist Critique
- Suffering Men, Suffering Women
Feminism has done useful service, for while it focusses directly on gender and
sex differences, simultaneously claiming that all such differences are cultural,
and that Y chromosomes are detrimental to society, it also reveals something
very new, very vibrant about this book of Job, which on the surface seems to say little about gender. For the story of Job gives little space to women and the enduring curse of Eve, rather it silences Job's wife
in a brief paragraph and devotes the remainder of the book to men. With so little
to go on, it might seem strange that we address this issue at all. Are we not in danger
of reading into the text our own predispositions?
Absolutely. Which is why this chapter comes last. But I would be doing a disservice if
I did not point out the character and person of this Personal Truth. If I have pointed
others to the secrets of finding gold, and evaluated the many techniques for extracting
precious metal, but did not stake a claim of my own then I would be a hypocrite and a cynic. This is my claim, my gold mine, and I challenge you, the reader, to dig with me or
against me, but above all, dig.
I will unabashedly stereotype in this section, because only by stereotyping will I be
able to make my points quickly. With caveats and careful distinctions I might offend
less people, but at the very real risk of putting the rest of my audience to sleep,
or worse, mishandling the message I seek to convey. Therefore postpone your judgements
to the end when you may dissect me at your leisure, but do not fail to read the
arguments first.
Biology is intricately entwined with theology, just as theology is basic to biology.
In the misty past of fertility goddesses and thunder gods, I would not have to support
this claim. But a century of skeptical rationalism claiming that theology is a thin
veneer of human culture applied to disguise messy biological necessities, requires
a reeducation in the mysteries. This is only too much in vogue today, with educators
elbowing into the ivy-draped halls with their latest version of New Paganism Mystery
Rituals supporting channelling, crystal power, Gaia, Goddesses or Wicca. However the
defence of Biblical realism has never been far away; two of my favorite authors on
the subject of mystery are G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis. It was Lewis who taught
me that God is always masculine, and therefore the Bible consistently uses the male pronoun for God. Yet how can that be, if God is a spirit, not having the form of a
human? Isn't this an example of the pagan past tainting our pure religion?
Lewis explains that in our dealings with heaven, God is always the initiator,
the actor, the prime mover, and humans are the recipients, the actee, the secondary mover.
Therefore in this relationship with God, He is eternally masculine and we
forever feminine. Likewise, the book of Job is about suffering and a savior, both
bearing important biological consequences.
Men and women suffer differently. It's in the genes. I have never had PMS, nor has a
woman ever had prostate troubles. But equally importantly, men and women handle mental
suffering differently. The loss of a child, for example, frequently pushes women over
the brink, whereas the loss of a career or a stock market crash has been known to send
otherwise sane men to their death. Why should we pretend that mental suffering is any
less divorced from genetics than physical suffering? Surely you know the danger of surprising a mother bear and her cubs on a mountain trail, far more dangerous than surprising a hungry male of twice the size. So it is that Job's wife and Job suffer differently, despite their common predicament. Yet it is Job's story that is told, and very little of hers. Why is that? And railing against a male-dominated society that supposedly
squashes feminine sensibility is beside the point. What is it about Job's suffering that
is unique from that of his wife? If we can pinpoint that, we are well on our way to
understanding the masculinity of the book, and ultimately, the gender of the Truth person.
Women, like she-bears, fiercely defend their children, their family, and their home. Sleep deprivation, surgical wounds, anemia, and general hormonal changes are considered nothing compared to the happiness of a
new born infant at 2 in the morning. Very few wounded men in the heat of battle would have that concern, and when they
surpass all expectations and achieve as much, they reward each other with medals and
badges of courage. Therefore women
are often the enablers in a dysfunctional family, attempting to hold their family together
in the face of acoholism and criminal behavior. But within that feminine instinct is a tremendous practicality. Feeding
the family, nurturing an infant, defending the home takes precedence over philosophical
niceties and intricate legalities. There is a very good reason why most philosophers are men, women are too sensible, they have more important things to do. "If you don't eat", my wife will tell the children, "you die." The same cannot be said for theology.
Men, on the other hand, have been known to die for arcane principles. I was deeply influenced by a Vicar whose father had died in World War II, leaving a wife and family of five, including this young 3-year old boy to fend for themselves on a British soldier's
pension. What was the occasion of his father's untimely death? His father served on the HMS Glowworm, the British destroyer that spotted German battlegroup 2 slipping through the North Sea in its surprise attack on Norway on the eighth of April, 1940. In a suicidal attack, the Glowworm fought through a German destroyer
screen to engage and finally ram the heavy escorting cruiser, Admiral Hipper, inflicting inconsequential damage before sinking. The
Glowworm's skipper, G.B. Roope, was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, on the
recommendation of the German commander. Neither fame nor medals helped Mrs. Wotherspoon
raise her family without a husband. The decades of privation that resulted from Lieutenant
Commander Roope's decision, hardly seemed justified from her perspective. Yet men are not
only likely to act so foolhardily, but long for it, reciting long histories of the brave and the free, while inflicting decades of hardship on their families. What gives?
If it can be said that women have an instinctual urge for security, for family, for
relationships, then
perhaps it can be said that men have an instinctual urge for fame, for glory, for
abstract principles like bravery and courage. Therefore the frustration of these instincts
is in some sense the greatest suffering they can experience. For a woman to lose her
security, her family, her relationships would be her greatest suffering. Whereas a man who lost his fame, his glory, his courage hardly has a life to live. Thus we can see that
Job and his wife reacted very differently to the same tragedies. She had lost it all: home, children, security, and by the looks of it, even her husband. Is it no wonder then
that she suggested a suicide pact to end it all? The book would have been far shorter had
she prevailed. But Job's suffering was not yet complete. Indeed he had lost everything
material, but not yet his principles, his integrity (2:9). This would come under attack in the next 30 odd chapters as his supposed friends attack his reputation, his courage, even his theology.
Thus it may be said that this is a peculiarly male book, appealing to those instincts that
so drive men. Which is not to say that it doesn't address female concerns, rather it absorbs and incorporates them into the whole. The material and physical suffering is but
the ground floor, common to all, but the pinnacles of suffering are for those who aspire even to God.
Top . Previous . Next
Comments: (delete asterisk)
r*bs@rbsp.info
(due to spamming, edit out the asterisk)