Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Right or Wrong?

As a retaliatory post to some of the anti-Woman stuff I've been reading, I decided to take a look at a rather unsavory woman and analyze her actions.

I'm not opposed to anti-feminist. I'm opposed to anti-woman. And yes, they are different. Contrary to what these men say, not every woman alive buys the Feminist stuff hook, line, and sinker. Yeah, the majority of women may have bought into some bad habits, but women in general were not, are not, and will never be the outright evil that some of these sites seem to perpetuate. I'm tired of all the hate-filled speech. I get enough of it listening to the news and keeping up with current affairs to put up with the hate towards the opposite gender from men (and women) who call themselves Christians.

So here's a story. I'm going to keep her name a secret for now because it tends to bias people and excuse her actions.

Essentially, this woman dressed as a prostitute, deceived and seduced a man, got pregnant, and claimed that man should support her and her offspring.

Wow. All this after she'd been labeled a Black Widow.

So unsavory a character - there's absolutely no excuse for her actions - NONE. How appalling...she is what gives all woman a bad name. She got away with it?!?! The BITCH! The outrage! She should be hanged! The deceitful witch and poor poor man - he shouldn't have to put up with her shit.

Yeah - that's the general direction any man would go in after hearing that story put up like that.

But here's a little more details into her story.

Her first husband, by no reason mentioned except he was a bad (very bad) man, ended up dead. No details about his death, no details as to who he was or what he did - he was just a very bad man. "Says who," you ask? Some liberal, pro-feminist journalist?

Her second husband was selfish and didn't want any children (well he did, just not with her). That wasn't ok, so he ended up dead. "She killed him and you still think that's ok?" It certainly would appear that she did kill him. And still I'm sticking up for her.

No man wanted to marry her after that - but it was intensely critical that she have a child - intensely critical. So she seduced a man and got pregnant with his child. Wow.

Still not much to condone here is it. These details just made her sound even worse. She's manipulative so she can have a baby because no one will marry her and give her kids? What kind of a woman is this?

Ok...throw in some more details.

Location: Canaan
Time Period: Post-Jacob-ish

Culture: When the husband of a woman dies without producing any heirs, she is then married to the eldest brother of the late husband to conceive and bear an heir for the first brother.

Ok. So this woman married a man who died without producing an heir (he was a very bad man). So she was married to his brother who didn't want HIS offspring to belong to his brother. So he ignored this tradition and refused to beget any child by his brother's wife. So he died.

Still no heir. And now she's been essentially labeled a "Black Widow" and her father-in-law refuses to let his youngest marry her because he might end up dead, too.

So what's a woman to do? Well, suck it up and deal you say. Well, normally they would. But for some bizarre reason this woman felt it was critical for her to have a child.

So she seduced her father-in-law by dressing as a prostitute and conceived a child by him.

The whore. Still no excuse.

Ok - one more detail. It had already been prophesied that the Messiah would come from the line of Judah. Who is the father-in-law in this story but the most esteemed Judah, son of Jacob, who from his seed comes the Lion of Judah.

Already prophesied*. Which means if Judah's line perishes, there can be no messiah. I don't know if this woman knew of this prophesy, but Judah certainly did. He was there when his father laid hands on him and made that prophesy.
Judah, your brothers will praise you;
your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;
your father's sons will bow down to you.

You are a lion's cub, O Judah;
you return from the prey, my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness—who dares to rouse him?

The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.

He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.

His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk.

~ Genesis 49:8-12

So this woman, who I'm sure you've guessed is Tamar, seduces her father-in-law because she does believe that it is her singular responsibility as a member of the covenant to produce an heir for her husband's family.

And an heir she does indeed produce. For she is one of the only woman (of five) to be listed in the lineage of Christ. No small feat, that, in a patriarchal society where the mother is not that big a deal to have your name forever etched in history as part of the Messiah's pedigree.

Of all the horrid and despicable things she did, her saving grace was obedience to the God of Abraham and Jacob.

Perhaps there's more saving grace out there for some more women.

This story is found in Genesis 38

*Note: The prophesy takes place in Chapter 49 while Tamar's story is in Chapter 38. I know there are some chronological issues with Genesis so I remain unclear if the prophesy took place before or after Tamar. However, I believe that the refusal to continue the lineage by Judah's second son was so heinous to God to deserve him struck dead was because of this Prophesy - not necessarily because God is against the use of Birth Control.


MarkyMark said...

The reason why guys don't make a distinction between women & feminism is for several of reasons. One, they don't see or hear women who they personally know say anything critical of feminism; if anything, they see these women in their lives spouting and/or living out some of feminism's tenets. Two, they don't see any high profile women being critical of feminism; they may not be aware of Phyllis Schflafly, who defeated the ERA almost by herself; all they see is Nancy Grace bashing the Duke Three on her program, and they see no dissenting voices. Three, feminism is worked its way into the heart and soul of every woman in America today, particularly the younger ones.

Another issue is that women who don't buy into feminism, who aren't 'like that', do precious little to distinguish themselves from those who are. From my perspective as a man, it's hard for me to tell the difference; after all, good and bad hand grenades look the same on the outside; we have no way of telling a dud from a live one until it's too late. Ergo, men are going to assume that all women are bad, because PRUDENCE dictates that they do. That is to say that I and my brothers know that there are good women out there; however, UNTIL WE KNOW OTHERWISE, we're going to operate on the assumption that she's an evil enemy who means us harm. That's the only way to protect ourselves, because those charged with our protection (e.g. the criminal justice system) damn sure aren't going to do it; if anything, they'll try to railroad us! Therefore, men have to do what they have to do to protect themselves.

It really all comes down to trust, and men's trust is gone now. I'd encourage you to read this Zenpriest piece, so you can at least understand WHY men don't make a distinction between feminists and women. I know it sucks to be lumped in with those bitches, but that's what happens when too few women do anything on behalf of men. Those are my thoughts.


MarkyMark said...

Before you chastise men for lumping women and feminists together, you might want to know WHY they're doing this...

Learner said...

Interesting post Christina but I have one question for you. How was Tamar to know that she had to get pregnant to continue the line of Judah? Judah's youngest son could have had a child or Judah himself could have chosen to have another child (he was obviously still capable of doing so). So, I am not sure where you get the idea that Tamar thought she was responsible some how to continue the line of Judah...could you explain?

Christina said...

Learner - as the more civilized of the comments sitting in my blog box, You are first :) (although EW and Matt were very nice, too)

Tamar knew what was the tradition - she wouldn't know about any of the prophesy.

What she did was obey established lineage law that the lineage goes through the eldest.

What I mean is that it was accepted that if the eldest leaves his wife widowed before producing an heir, it was the next child's responsibility to father a child in his elder brother's name through his elder brother's widow. Why, I don't know - but perhaps to continue the lineage or what not.

She probably only knew this much and her father-in-law knew as much as well. His youngest would be unable to marry and have children of his own until he fathered a child through his brother's widow - and he kept his son from doing so because he was afraid of Tamar.

His keeping his son from fathering a child through Tamar effectively put a stop to his blood line. Tamar stepped up and fixed that in a rather unconventional way.

Christina said...

Mark -

As I see it, trust has been utterly slaughtered on both sides of the fence.

Women don't trust men (which results in feminism, nagging, and man-bashing).

Men don't trust women - and you know where that one leads.

Its not cool for either party. And I'm done with trying to figure out how to "fix" it - its totally broken and has been since the end of Eden - and that's why God left very specific guidelines for how husbands and wives treat eachother.

I'm done with it and simply going to chalk this up to a sinful world and move on. However, I do want to keep writing about how the feminism side of it is a result of sin and not something we (as women) should just give into.

I want it to be understood by all readers here that trust has been severely compromised by both parties - no one is innocent here - but I will seek to address Feminism as much as I can from a biblical perspective.