K’vitsh i need to get plucked More? Okay... »

Sunday night blues all day

Ugh, I can’t shake this depression. It’s getting worse and I’m worried I’m going to snap at work. Not “going postal” snap, just, “You’re all stupid twats and I’m quitting!” snap.

I’ll go for another big walk w/ Mel today and try to get some items crossed off my to-do list. Maybe that’ll help.

I had an email query about my last post, where I compared being a wife to being a whore. Let me clarify (as visions of all the people who’ve stopped being friends w/ me because of my big mouth dance through my head…).

In theory, I have no problem w/ either wives or whores. I don’t think women or men are better or worse for having or not having a mate.

My point was, in my opinion, and the opinion of several biblical scholars, Mary Magdalene was a disciple, if not the favoured disciple. Historically speaking, wife, mother, and whore are the typical roles women are allowed to fill.

Portraying Magdalene as any of these takes away her prestige as a disciple, makes her a “typical” woman. Being a “typical” woman is fine. Except, of course, that she wasn’t.

When I read your comment about “Making her his wife reduces her to a typical chick role, not much better than a whore, really” I agreed. What it says to me is that there are the common roles we’re used to seeing men and women in and for the most part these roles are sexualized or nurturing/protecting. They aren’t usually equals (I’d like to think there is now some equality in sex relations but it depends on how cynical I’m feeling). To say that MM and JC were buds who learned form each other without shagging suggests that the aspect of their identity made up of being male or female is not, in this context, important - or AS important. And that’s hard to imagine in a patriarchal society. To say “There is no man or woman Greek or Jew under Christ” tears apart the way we categorize identity. Leonard Cohen said that he didn’t want the relationship he had with Suzanne to be “compromised by carnality”

And thanks for bringing back the links to your fav sites.

Thank you, Devon, that was a much needed bit of cleverness.

You’re welcome.

I still disagree.

I think it would be a great boon to our society to have them both be able to be sexual -and- for both to be respected, with their sexuality being little more than a curious side-note.

And, honestly, I see the notion of her being some sort of nun or spinster as being at least as trite.

I just don’t see how it is in any way better for people to be sexless.

But, it is typical of Christians to consider sexual activity to be sinful and disposable.

This is the number one reason I’m not a Christian.
Lachele

You’re missing the point. I’m not saying that Mary was sexless, or that one has to be sexless to be of significance in the world. But patriarchy, by defining her first as either whore or mother (virgin/whore), makes her sexuality her defining characteristic.

In real life, sexuality is a curious side-note for everyone, even if they arguably make it their schtick, a la Madonna.

Unfortunately, in the olden days, if you weren’t married, you were a spinster. Still is, in fact. Often, the only way to be free is to avoid marriage and children, freedom being relative.

My main point is - nothing wrong w/ whoredom or motherhood/wifedom. Also nothing wrong w/ spinsterhood. However, the fact that history has turned Magdalene into a whore is not an accident.

Mel says by being an apostle, it’s what she did, not who she was with that makes her important. Wife/whore = Jesus was drawn to her because she was a woman. Apostle = Jesus was drawn to her ideas and strengths.

If you think her sexuality should be irrelevant, then we agree.

I just don’t think it should be wrong for her to have been wife or whore if that’s what she was.

Instead, I think it should be “so what?” Or, maybe “hmmm, that’s interesting.”

You said:

“Making her his wife reduces her to a typical chick role, not much better than a whore, really.”

That really makes it sound awful to be wife and even worse to be whore. I just wanted to say I don’t see any more problem with her being wife or whore than I see with Joseph being carpenter.

I realize the society was terribly restrictive for women. I can’t see any harm, though, in allowing that a given woman may have been in one of the acceptable roles.

Of course, I don’t think it’s good, either, for scholars to invent facts.
L

I’ll avoid the interesting sex talk and let you know that I [heart] your new look. My favorite so far!

I agree L - it SHOULDN’T be wrong for her to shag anyone she wants. The problem is, once sex enters into the picture it tends to obscure all else. Instead of being a scholar, MM becomes a sex object. Peter wasn’t a sex object and who he shagged was never mentioned. It should be, as you say, so what. But it isn’t that way. It never has been and even now we don’t live in a world where that’s the case. There would be no harm in MM having a sex life if it didn’t eclipse any other information about her. The problem is simple - it is easier in our society, which bases many categories on binaries, to say that woman = something to fuck, be it wife or whore. The roles for chicks are sexual ones, those for men are not. Joseph being a carpenter means he has a paying job where his skills matter. Being a wife means you don’t get paid for the work you do and your skills are irrelevant as divorce wasn’t exactly an option. It would be lovely to think she was chosen for her skills - but if she’s a disciple her skills make her much more equal than if she’s a wife.

Thanks, Kristal. So glad you like it.

Too bloodless to contribute to the debate, so I’ll just type hear hear Devon.

Why does being a wife/whore make the fact that she was a disciple less good?

Why is it so awful that she be both?

Did you mean this as an exclusive thing? I don’t doubt at all that she was a disciple, and I didn’t get from your post that anyone else doubts that she had a significant role. I just don’t see how having her be something else suddenly negates that role.
Lachele

In a perfect world, it doesn’t. In this world, a woman’s sexuality colours everything else about her, like if she’s raped for instance. Courts still struggle w/ whether or not her sexual history should be admitted to court.

And the reason I refuse to accept that she’s both is because the bible doesn’t claim she is one.