Sforzando: On women and power, and the exercise thereof.

[silveradept]

From the same pen, we have two very different posts - one that draws chuckles, eyebrow-raising, and outright "WTF"-ery. And another that undercuts the first and proves that she doesn't really believe the full impact of what she's writing about.

Let's start with the set-up post: A poster puts forward the idea that voting in democratic elections is against the mitzvot of the being represented by the Tetragrammaton that forbids women from holding power over men. Women voting, goes the reasoning, could lead to the passage of laws that more than half of the men don't favor, because the women do, like legalized abortion, or to the election of the curses that are women politicians and people of power. Both of those acts are clearly forbidden in the writings - not as direct speech of G-d, but of the writings and speakings of the officially sanctioned prophets. Not even Sarah Palin escapes the baleful eye, as her daughter's pregnancy is blamed entirely on the fact that Palin didn't devote herself to her motherly duties full time, instead cursing her family by achieving the forbidden dominion over men.

After this, she points out the historical precedent of women not having any power, and then launches into the litany of evils brought about by women's liberation - high divorce rates, adultery, abortion, abandoned children, and the requirement of the two-income household. And it's clearly worse now than it was before, because our modern statistics point out how likely men are to be violent and murderous to their pregnant wives and girlfriends. Because all periods in history could collect statistics in such a manner, and were interested in doing so, apparently.

In the addendum, she basically says that anyone wanting to disagree with her has to do so citing her own holy book, meaning citing her own interpretation of that holy book, if they want to change her mind. She also believes that God-fearing women who choose not to vote will be blessed by God, who will hinder a feminist trying to vote, and that she will influence the world more through having brought and raised men in her mold than any women who aborts hers.

On the next post, while indicating she still has no intent of ever going to the ballot box, she proclaims that she's been voting on how the world will turn out for a while now. Her example list is illuminating, actually, about how much power she wields over men while supposedly properly in her submissive role. She is following the history of women and how they were influential before they were allowed to be overtly influential. Observe:

• Homeschooling: While pitying the children receiving public education, she affirms the role that women traditionally hold - teaching their children about the world, about morality, about how to interact with people. At this age, what one hears at home is very important in forming the views one will have when leaving home. On an intellectually simple reading of her last post, one might suggest that her having sons is exercising power over them as a parent, but you would probably get smacked by supporters and detractors alike for saying so - the mitzvot directly from G-d is that you honor the people who brought you into this world, so clearly there's a chain of authority there that's sanctioned. Speaking of...


• Parental Authority and Parental Care: Those boys and girls get to learn about the way the world works from an early age - in this case, it's "Authority is to be obeyed, regardless of what you think" - and unlike many other parents, I doubt that's going to change any as they get older. Their mother also takes time out to talk with them and play with them and take an interest in their development and literacy. In doing so, not only does she exercise control over her children, but I'm betting she exercises control over the household and her husband in numerous ways, some that he probably notices, others that he has no clue about.

After this point, I can probably speculate about the times where she's used her feminine wiles or other ways that she's been able to influence her domain, and by extension, the society around her, whether through children, or organizations, or church, or her religious beliefs. As she astutely notes, she casts her votes on issues important to her many, many times without ever stepping into a polling place and casting any political ballots. Therein lies the contradiction of her posts, and I'm curious to know how she rationalizes together those two posts, where she claims that she's a good wife in not exercising authority over men and then detailing several ways in which she does exercise authority over men, just in much subtler ways than political voting.

Comments

[onyxlynx]

Tradition, probably.

(I read screeds like this in the '60s and they left a bad taste in my mouth. In fact, Listerine is calling my name.)

[silveradept]

I have Fiddler on the Roof in my head after that. But, yes, tradition makes it sound like there isn't a contradiction, much like how we're supposed to believe that history is mostly about dudes with penises attacking or making treaties with other dudes with penises. Despite that, if you scratch the surface, you find all sorts of women pulling strings and being just as important.

[ilyena_sylph]

*shakes head*

I think I'm too well indoctrinated in that lifestyle to understand why you think there's a contradiction...

Power, rulership, dominion, authority... those are not the same as the subtle influence that is a woman's place in that worldview.

Not that I agree with them, but that's what it is.

[silveradept]

That's just it. They think those aren't the same thing, but they're not right. We have plenty of stories and fictions about the women behind the power, the women who are really calling the shots through their sons and husbands. It's all arranged subtly so that it doesn't look like she's exercising direct authority, but she is. I don't understand why they think that overt displays of power are wrong, but similarly command women to exercise power over their sons and husbands, just behind closed doors. It's not self-consistent, and I know there has to be an explanation or rationalization for why.

[trinker]

For a people whose lives are all about observing the proper forms, this makes sense. The proper forms of a woman's authority are such and so, other forms are improper.

It's not about being consistent for a rational evaluation.

[ilyena_sylph]

Basically, yeah.

[silveradept]

Ah, so it's a part where the forms have to be proper, in a religion that routinely made fun of the people who were obsessed with the forms being proper to the point of missing the point?

Eh. I've heard stranger. Like trinker said, it's not about being rationally consistent. (I would like it to hang together and be religiously consistent, which it really isn't, either, but that's a different thread.)