Unless you think Bronze Age notions should be dictating our public policy in 2012.
.jpg)
Much of what was defined as the masculine role in society was protected in this way from the feminine role in society. Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 illustrates this: “If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.”
Thankfully we no longer cut off women's hands, but other biblical laws that restrict women's rights made it into modern times. One such law was a law that restricted women from inheriting land. Numbers 27 presents an act of petitioning whereby Zelophehad’s daughters were able to gain limited inheritance rights. One could draw an unbroken line from the time of Zelophehad’s daughters through history, clear into the twentieth century, to see how women’s rights to inherit and to own property were severely restricted. In the Bible, male and female relationships and roles were maintained through rigid enforcement of boundaries.
Biblical gender roles are not something that we left behind in the Bronze Age—many biblical notions about gender roles are still prevalent in today’s society. We must ask ourselves if American society should be more concerned with maintaining boundaries or if it should be more concerned with creating a society where every citizen has equal access under the law. While our Constitution is very clear on this matter, our society remains confused. Because of this, we need to examine how we define gender and how this definition has been influenced by religious ideas. In this way we will be able to create new roles for men and women—roles that are constitutionally based and roles which enhance each person’s ability to participate in our society.
The
story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good illustration of biblical gender roles. In
the story (Exodus 19:5-10,) Abraham's relative Lot received two angelic visitors.
The people of Sodom were unaware that the visitors had been sent by G-d and
only knew that the two visitors were from afar. After the visitors entered the
city, the townspeople became angry and they began banging on Lot's door,
demanding to rape the visitors. Incredibly, instead of telling the townspeople
that their behavior was despicable, Lot offered his daughters as fodder for the
rape in an effort to protect the visitors.
This
story is abhorrent, and very difficult to understand from a modern perspective. Why were the townspeople wanting to rape the visitors? Why did Lot offer his daughters instead of trying to protect the visitors? In an effort to understand this story, many people have attempted to explain Lot's actions.
Some commentators explain that Lot offered his daughters because the homosexual demands of the townspeople were too disgusting to countenance. Other commentators explain that the town of Sodom was destroyed by G-d because the townspeople were not hospitable to the angelic visitors. Dr. Rachel Havrelock, of the University of Chicago, has a different explanation which makes more sense[i]. Dr. Havrelock, argues that the townspeople of Sodom wanted to rape the angelic visitors as punishment for transgressing the city's boundaries without permission. In other words, the townspeople of Sodom wanted to punish the visitors through the humiliation of penetration (rape) because the visitors had penetrated the town’s borders. For Havrelock, Lot offered his daughters as fodder because it was more preferable to have his daughters penetrated (raped) than to allow his male visitors to be “humiliated” in this way.
Some commentators explain that Lot offered his daughters because the homosexual demands of the townspeople were too disgusting to countenance. Other commentators explain that the town of Sodom was destroyed by G-d because the townspeople were not hospitable to the angelic visitors. Dr. Rachel Havrelock, of the University of Chicago, has a different explanation which makes more sense[i]. Dr. Havrelock, argues that the townspeople of Sodom wanted to rape the angelic visitors as punishment for transgressing the city's boundaries without permission. In other words, the townspeople of Sodom wanted to punish the visitors through the humiliation of penetration (rape) because the visitors had penetrated the town’s borders. For Havrelock, Lot offered his daughters as fodder because it was more preferable to have his daughters penetrated (raped) than to allow his male visitors to be “humiliated” in this way.
Our
society must examine how we view “penetrators” and how we view “the penetrated.”
All my life, I have listened as men told one another “to not be like women.”
When I was a kid I heard boys say to one another, “You throw like a girl,” or
“You’re a sissy.” Now that I am an adult I have heard many men express concerns
that women are going to emasculate them. I have always wondered why men are so
concerned with being emasculated—as a woman I have no experience with testicles
and do not understand the relationship men have with their testicles. But if I
view the fear of emasculation through Dr. Havrelock’s hypothesis, then I begin
to understand. Men are afraid that a woman will somehow make it impossible for
them to penetrate—they are afraid that a woman has the power to make them
impotent. The biblical role of man as “penetrator” is alive and well—as is the
biblical role of women as receptacles for penetration (and humiliation.)
The
story of Sodom illustrates how males can also be humiliated through this rigid
definition because men are especially vulnerable when they allow themselves to
be penetrated. Society views homosexual men as a group of humiliated
penetrators—men who accept the societal role of women—that of being receptacles
of penetration. I say it this way, because gay men have always been special
targets of anti-homosexual groups. Many gay men have been murdered simply because
they were gay. As a Lesbian, I have sometimes felt invisible as a homosexual
person. But now I see that women are already humiliated because we can be
penetrated. I also see that women’s issues and LGBT issues are one and the same
thing. A gain for one group is a gain for the other and the story of Sodom
illustrates how this is so.
Recently, some state governments
have attempted to pass legislation requiring a trans-vaginal ultrasound as a
gatekeeping mechanism for anyone trying to access abortion services. This is an
attempt to establish government-sponsored rape (via the trans-vaginal wand) as
punishment for out-of-bounds sexual intercourse. (The fact that women who have
had sexual intercourse outside of the bounds of marriage are the biggest
targets of this legislation cannot go unmentioned.) The state legislators who
are supporting these efforts are acting in a way that is reminiscent of Lot and
the townspeople of Sodom. The Far Right Christian community is banging on the
door, demanding that women who have sex outside established “bonds of marriage”
be brought to justice and the legislators who are in favor of raping women
through the use of the trans-vaginal wand are Lot—they are offering up their
daughters to be raped in order to satisfy the demands of the crowd.
This type of legislation must not
be allowed. Women and men have the right to live in freedom from religious law
and from religious norms and controls. This right is given to us by the First
Amendment which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It does not matter if a woman has
sex outside marriage and it does not matter if a man is homosexual—First
Amendment rights still apply.
Those of us who are in the LGBT
community must begin to view women’s issues and LGBT issues as First Amendment
issues—precisely because today’s notions of gender roles are biblically based. Gender
roles need not be rigidly maintained or regulated in our society because
American society stands on Constitutional principles—not on antiquated, Bronze
Age religious notions of male and female roles. American society is great because
we allow our citizens to participate in society. American society is great
because our constitution allows each citizen to have equal access to public
institutions. Keeping homosexuals from accessing marriage and keeping women
from accessing healthcare does not make American strong. Rather, rigidly
maintained gender roles restrict a person’s access and ability to participate
in society and tear America apart. By cutting out segments of our population,
we are in effect cutting our own necks. We are all in this together.
[i] Havrelock, Rachel. River Jordan:
the Mythology of a Dividing Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
2011. p. 43-45.
