Oct 23, 2007

Because you're a -- and I'm a -- The Male Female Dynamic: And Woman Inherits The Earth Part II (Gender Roles)

Thoughtful considerations:

God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs (65 million years ago); God creates man, Man destroys God; Man creates dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat man and woman inhabits the earth. Jurassic Park Movieline

Every therapist (exclusively males at the time) ought to have a control by some third person so that he remains open to another point of view.

Women are particularly gifted for playing such a part. They often have excellent intuition and a trenchant critical insight, and can see what men have up their sleeves...seeing also into men's anima intrigues.

They see aspects that the man does not see. That is why no woman has ever been convinced that her husband is a superman. Carl Gustav Jung

Beware of the Rapist! Given my previous years as a clinician, I always caution individuals that I speak with, particularly women, to always beware of the therapist. A closer examination of the term therapist, a combination of two others terms, reveals a hidden warning. The therapist is actually 'the rapist'. In other words, women should be careful with respect to who they permit to condition/rape their minds! Rev. C. Solomon



Do you remember the memorable line, mentioned in our title, from the original movie: Jurassic Park, "because you're a..., and I'm a"? That line, which concealed two unspoken terms, female and male, were spoken during an exchange that took place between Jurassic Park creator John Hammond, and female paleobotanist Ellie Sattler. The encrypted meaning of the line was not lost on me, and in a sense its meaning has remained with me until this day. Why? Because that which was not spoken aloud, during the exchange that took place between these two very talented actors, was to my way of thinking, an accurate portrayal of the ongoing spoken and unspoken struggle that exists between the sexes even until this day.

And let me be clear, to borrow from today's black street patois, what "I'm a and you're a", is all about in terms of male-female relationships is, 'who is da man'! For it is 'da man', who wears the pants, is in the position of power and makes the final decisions.

Now, even though John, the park's creator, employed politeness in order to hide his chauvinistic feelings of male superiority, everyone in the theater, including his counterparts in the bunker - knew exactly what he meant without his having to say so out loud; in other words, I am a man (strong) and you are a woman (weak). As Rodney King once said, 'can't we all just get along'? The fact is that several centuries past modernity, the majority of females in the world continue to feel that they are being oppressed or suppressed in most instances by their male counterparts, the ones who claim to be their providers and protectors.

And ironically, their trenchant male counterparts cannot understand why their purportedly weaker counterparts feel the way that they do. From the male point of view, males believe that they are doing a excellent job in their assignment as leaders, of doing the heavy lifting and being the protectors and providers for of their female counterparts. So where is the disconnect coming from. For Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Betty Friedan and most other women have had a completely different take on the job that the males are doing and have done over the years.

These women wanted to and still want to level the playing field; and their objectives were and are still to help females to find their rightful place within the cosmic plan. Sojourner would still be saying if she could, 'ain't I a wo-man', some say a 'wombed man?

Part I. The Rigid Belief System That Females Are Working To Change So what else is new, did you say? The line, that I previously referred to is based upon a rigid belief system (that is still inculcated into the cultural fabric of most societies of the world even until today). It is a belief system that has been preferred, historically, mostly by the primordial male half of the species, a belief system that holds that gender roles were predetermined by the creator, and were and are determined due to whatever sex one happened and happens to be. Why would males prefer a gender role definition to remain intact, just as it has been, perennially through the annals of times, while females would like to see some modification to the long-held definition and belief system?

Could it be that way because the historical male-female gender paradigm has always been more advantageous to males? It makes you wonder, what would have become of society if males had never existed, or if the historical paradigm had not existed? Would nature, particularly female nature, as chaotician Ian explained later in the movie, have found a way! For as we all have witnessed, women never give up on a task when there isn't 'a big strong man' around to complete it! Recently, I heard a woman say that men don't have any power, we simply allow them to think that do. Hmm!!

If you remember the words of animal expert Mr. Muldoon in the movie, when he referred to the all-female group of animals, particularly the velociraptors; he said, they are always thinking, and testing the fences always trying to figure out a way escape. Women continue to test the male-imposed limitations that have been imposed upon them, and they are always focused on escaping from the fences of servitude, bondage and incarceration that have encased them! Could it be that Jesus also came to free women from their states of bondage!

I participated in a strength and manual dexterity exercise some years ago, while attending a mid-western elementary school. At the conclusion of the exercise, a fifth-grade female classmate, who will remain nameless at this time, proved to be just as strong as I was. And she couldn't wait to tell everyone around us what the test results yielded - that she was just as strong as I was. Her boasting almost earned her a knuckle sandwich at the time.

I can also remember what motivated me to finally learn to tie my shoes - during my preschool years. No matter how often my parents tried to teach me how to tie my shoes, nothing worked. However, on the day that my cousin, a female, who was one month younger than me was brought over to the house, I immediately got down on my knees and for the first time tied my shoes. Why? Upon her arrival, it was announced that she had learned to tie her shoes. I couldn't let that happen, a female being able to tie her shoes before I could tie my shoes. My God, I was a male, and boys were being taught at the time that they were superior to girls.

Most males like me, learned years later that girls were faking it most of the time and methodically allowing us to beat them in most competitions, the smart ones. Why? So that we would like them, given that they were our inferiors. In fact it was my grandmother who informed me years later that factually the girls chase the boys until the boys catch them (catch up if you prefer). Isn't it amazing, how society once taught girls, during their socialization periods, that the only way that boys would like them, would be if they permitted the boys to believe that they were bigger, better, stronger and superior to them? Grandma, a former school principal and teacher herself, also informed me during one of our private sit-down sessions that girls actually thought faster than most boys did.

Grandma should have thanked God at the time that she was a senior citizen (pow)! Just kidding, for I realized then that she was trying to teach me some things that no one else had ever taught me before - something that I needed to know. A co-worker from the past was devastated at the comments of a young medical intern told her that he never dated female medical students at the medical school that he intended. Anne's mouth dropped open when he told her, they are too smart! Grandma was right. The young intern made it clear that he did not want a woman who was as smart as he was, so he simply dumbed it down and dated nurses - well anyone but a female equal.

Why I can still remember the young girl at the church that I attended when I was a young boy who told a group of us young boys (in the 5 to 10 year age group) one day outside of the church building, that she could only run in place. She even demonstrated, for her all boy audience, that although she had sufficient motor skill development to be able to propel herself and run just as we could (advancing our bodies forward), that for some reason she still could not advance her body forward while engaged in the running motion. We enjoyed trying to teach the 'dumb old girl' how to move forward by placing one leg in front of the other as she engaged in the running motion; however, she just could not seem to get it.

In fact we talked, unabashedly, about her years later, even into pre-pubescence and throughout puberty. Sadly, it was only a few years ago that a female friend explained to me, when I recanted the story of the dumb old girl, that we were the dummies - for the girl (who she didn't know by the way) was only doing what she was doing in order to keep our attention(s) focused upon her. Well, did I feel dumb! Is it too late? Can I go back and give that smart-aleck, 'unable to propel herself forward girl', a knuckle sandwich? I can hear her now, she is somewhere telling her friends about this group of dumb boys that she made a fool out of when she was a kid!

So how long have females been fooling males in the manner that they have been fooling us? For on yet another occasion I witnessed another sagacious woman inveigle one of the young boys in my group into completing a chore that she wanted completed at her house. How did she get him to complete the task? She didn't ask or demand that he complete the task, she simply said, I wish I had some big strong boy with big muscles to go and complete the task. Man, every boy in the area code stepped up to demonstrate how strong he was, not me. I knew that something was up and my pre-teen feelings were soon corroborated.

I continued to watch the sagacious and manipulative woman who had just manipulated 'my man', after the task had been completed - she had a smile on her face. Aha, I saw that! She used her mind to trick my man into completing the task by appealing to his youthful male ego; and worse yet, then she laughed about it. Its too bad that she was too big to give a knuckle sandwich to at the time. However, I learned something: man you have got to watch these women, especially those with limited muscle structure, for they will out think or out wit you every time! Okay, one other humorous story.

A schoolteacher friend's son, Camille, who once resided in Los Angeles California, received a phone call from one of her girlfriends one day. It seems that Camille's pre-teenaged son, was interested in her daughter and he stepped up to the plate and phoned her. When mom answered the phone she playfully asked Felton, Camille's son, and what do you want with my 'fast' daughter'? Young Felton, thinking that his consort was outside training for a track meet, asked, is she running track now? Now get this, these two women laughed at young Felton - yes, Camille, my friend, laughed at her own son. How long have these females been laughing at us behind our backs? Folks this thing, the female conspiracy against men, runs deep - it even crosses blood-lines! Okay, moving right along!

Part II. Survival of the Species:
Ellie concluded the scene with John, before leaving the hatch, by saying, "we'll discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back". Let's face it folks, survival of the species depends on cooperation between the two dominant sexes in all of today's human 'survival situations', that includes family survival, survival in the home, at church and so on. Social Darwinism, which is based on individualism and survival of the fittest will simply not work in a human, survival of the species scenario. And isn't that what life is all about, survival? One writer once wrote the following: that life is simply finding things to do until you die. He was wrong!

Another writer expressed the meaning of life in other terms, he said: life is simply doing those things that one must do in order to prevent death/survive. And that is more factual. However, in the Peanuts comic strip, written many years ago, I remember Charlie Brown saying the following: "we are all insects on the windshield of life - and that life is like a folding deck chair", the latter referred to the deck chairs on an cruiseliner. Eek!

Philosopher Abraham Maslow's hierarchy demonstrates, on the bottom two rungs of his hierarchical pyramid, that human survival depends first upon humans acquiring food, water and shelter. The other pleasures in life, he demonstrated, were are inconsequential, he explained, that is if one did not manage to acquire the physiological and life-sustaining necessities of life. The rest would not matter, the pleasure principle for example, for if you didn't eat, drink and have shelter - you would be dead anyway. And as long as we are discussing authors, how about philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's explanation of 'man's inhumanity to man'? Hegel premised, in this context 'man's inhumanity to women', was a result of the following: the ownership of property and the pursuit of power through class struggle.

Is this what God intended within the cosmological plan, for the human portion of the species that was created? Was it a part of God's plan, that a segment of the human species would spend its entire existence in pursuit of power and the complete domination over and devastation of its gender opposite? The burgeoning rift between the sexes, will not serve us any better today than it has done in the past. For history has proven that when the two work together and in a cooperative fashion, that societal institutions work better. Clearly, the problem today is that the rift between the sexes appears to be ever-widening, while at the same time we are experiencing commensurately more and more problems within our society.

Consider the rift today and its impact upon the American family? More and more, children in America are being raised in single-parent households. Why? Because males and females in America, more and more, are avoiding committed and monogamous relationships. It would appear that many males and females prefer the less threatening, 'hit and run', if you know what I mean - for there is still a need to satisfy the sexual urge. Other males and females today prefer same sex relationships, to put it bluntly, and to be with individuals of their same genders!

Yet there is a group of women, according to the book entitled: Mansharing, that are not opposed to sharing 'their man' with another female, particularly if their male partner is married. Why would anyone knowingly tolerate this you ask? Many females simply do not want an untrustworthy domineering male around all the time. These modern day femme fatales prefer that he, the male, would simply come and go on an "I will call you when I need you", sexual basis. Otherwise, once the man has done his duty he is disposable. The other reason that women prefer mansharing, over monogamous relationships, according to the author, is in order to level the playing field.

Many women believe that most men are unfaithful. So to solve the problem, many women have decided, simply put, that if you can't beat them, you might as well join them. So at the same time that the male is thinking that he is playing his female counterpart, she is also playing him. Many of the females in the latter category are represented by career or college-educated women. Some of these women are married themselves. They surmise that as long as her man is in another committed or semi-committed relationship with another female, preferably a married one, that between the two, she will know where the 'shared man' happens to be at all times.

Does this signal the death of male-female relationships, Eek? Now, who gets the knuckle sandwich for coming up with that idea? I don't know about the other brotha's out there, but I feel used and dirty somehow - I would not care to be used simply for conjugal visits! Brotha's, this is worse than polyandry! This is a matter of women doing to men in reverse, what some men have been doing to them all the way back to the beginning of time. However, I say to those women who are involved in payback or who make the moral equivalency argument I say, 'don't taze me bro', I didn't cheat on you <(-:).

Part III. I'm A Male, You're A Female:
Let's review what took lace in our story: Jurassic Park had been taken off line, given the shenanigans of one of the Park employees who saw a way to make some money for himself off of Jurassic Park, during a devastating tropical thunderstorm that struck the island earlier that day. A remote computer system that had been knocked off-line, as a result of the storm, and the park employee's malfeasance, had just been brought back on-line by one of two children during a planned visit to the island park (a pre-teen female no less) that day. Now, all that needed to occur was for someone to scurry over to an adjacent underground bunker (without being eaten by any of the dinosaurs that had escaped as a result of the failure of the park's security fences), then reboot the electrical system and bring Jurassic park back on line.

The question that remained was who was the 'the man' for the job? For after all in a make-believe world as well as in the real world so much depends on gender: well, at least from a male perspective. And in most male dominated societies, men consider themselves to be the fittest (These men never met another elementary school classmate, Louise C. - she would beat you down). So while the park was in danger of being destroyed, time had to be taken out to carry on a sexist argument (short in this instance), in order to determine which individual, and of which gender-set would save the day. Would it be a wobbly and semi-injured old man or the young vivacious, striking and capable Ellie Sattler!

Of the group of males who were known to still be alive and capable of attempting this perilous task, only septuagenarian John Hammond or Mr. Muldoon remained. Samuel Jackson's character (unknown to his cohorts) had already been dissected and devoured by one of the man-eating velociraptors when he solely attempted this feat. For sure, Jackson's character had not returned, whereby leaving the rest of the team to imagine the worst. The creator of Jurassic Park, who was way past his prime and got along with the assistance of a cane wasn't fit to complete the task.

Ellie, similar to Eve (another female rule-breaker in the garden of Eden story), the paleobotanist who had accompanied her dinosaur-expert fiance on the weekend trek to the Costa Rican park for observation purposes, decided that she was heir-apparent and would go and attempt to bring the park's power back on line. Mr. Muldoon would go along and ride shot gun.

Here is the setting and the accordant movie lines:

Something's happened. Something went wrong.

MULDOON paces too. HAMMOND and MALCOLM are also crammed in the
underground bunker. Malcolm lays on a table, while Hammond tries to
tend to his wounds.
Hammond speaks, still feeling the obligation of the host.

This is just a delay, that's all this is. All major
theme parks have had delays. When they opened
Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked, nothing.


But, John. But if the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks
down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.

Another pause. More pacing.

I can't wait anymore. Something went wrong. I'm going
to go get the power back on.

You can't just stroll down the road, you know.

Bob, let's not be too hasty. He's only been gone - -
(he looks at his watch)

Muldoon walks over to a steel cabinet. Ellie joins him.

I'm going with you.


Muldoon CLANGS open a steel cabinet, revealing an impressive
array of weaponry inside. He removes a shotgun and what looks like a
small rocket launcher. He shoves a shell into the barrel of the rocket
launcher, which accepts it with a faint electronic SIZZLE.

Hammond searches out the set of blueprints, gets them out of the
file cabinet and spreads them out on top of Malcolm almost crushing his


Ellie and Muldoon join Hammond.

HAMMOND (cont'd)
This isn't like switching on the kitchen light, but I
think I can follow this and talk you through it.

Hammond signals with a look.


Ellie gets a couple of walkie-talkies from the shelf and shoves
them in her belt.

ELLIE (cont'd)

But you know, I should really be the one going (to go).


Well, because you're a - - I'm a - -



Come on, let's go.

We'll discuss sexism in survival situations when I get
(she backs towards the door)
You just take me through this step by step. I'm on
channel two.


Centuries past Modernity, we are still debating sexism in survival situations. For just as Ellie's words captured my attention during the movie, I thought, how often have we witnessed the same sentiments being expressed by women in societies from all over the world, today.

Isn't it amazing that centuries past modernity, and 5-millenia since Adam and Eve walked the earth, that not much has changed. There are still individuals and groups who are still fighting for the right to live, exist and pursue their visions and goals without being interfered with by their fellow human beings, especially, females. How did Adam and Eve survivea 900-plus years marriage? Women in many post-modern cultures are still fighting, not so much for a right to exist - for trust me men still want women around - but for the right to live and to act freely without having to acquire permission to do so from their overbearing male counterparts. Often we forget that without women, there wouldn't be a society, i.e., unless we had found another creative way to provide offspring, the society would have died out.

If all of life is arguably still a survival situation, and I would argue that it is, it is also clear that pernicious sexism inevitably factors into its outcomes and will have a lot to say about whether society will run along smoothly or whether it will survive. The hubris between men and women is growing at an astronomical rate. More and more humans, particularly in America, are choosing same-sex relationships over monogamous male-female relationships. More to be feared than the dropping of any H-Bomb is the imminent danger that we face given the fractious nature of male/female relationships. One wonders whether or not the two sexes will ever find a peaceful way to co-exist, other than by separating from each other. Right now the end appears to be unsure.

I find that sexism in survival situations is still with us today: in our homes, in our schools, in our churches and in society in general. Sexism is one of the most threatening challenges to the survival of mankind, today. We could be speeding towards the elimination of humankind, if the two sexes were to refuse to cohabit and if we do not find a way to get along together.

There were several other explosive but memorable lines in the movie, that connoted the ongoing competition between the sexes, that also caught my attention. For example, the conversation between Doctor Alan Grant and Chaotician Ian Malcolm, which was interrupted and completed, once again, by Ellie: God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs, God creates man, man destroys God, Man creates dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat man, and Ellie interjects (to the chagrin of the men who initiated the conversation), "and woman inhabits the earth". Where is Rodney King when you need him? Folks, can't we all just get along, and if not - why not? If you will recall earlier, Mr. Muldeen did not think it too self-effacing for him to play second fiddle to Ellie, who would emerge as heroine by bringing the park back online. What can we take given their peaceful interaction and willingness to work together.

Part IV: Male & Female Roles and Why Won't Females Stay In Their Places? One thing that most every male knows deep down inside, is that he would never willingly change places in society with females, even though the same males insist on subjugating and insisting that women remain in their subservient positions of powerlessness. Why would a man object to being caught up in the feminine role, one that most males believe was divinely ordained? It is because the feminine role is considered to be the weaker of the two in most societies. Of course, men aren't crazy! They wouldn't want women or society to do to them, if the roles were reversed, what men have historically done and are currently doing to women!

Therefore there is an intrinsic need in most males to hold on to the power even forced power. And what that suggests to me is that males are not as innocent as we pretend to be, its not about God, men's attitudes and behaviors can be attributed more to the fact men know full women what they are doing to women, when they work at holding them in their positions of subservience, could happen to them.

In my last writing on this topic, I explored the question of whether or not radical feminism was the cause for the seeming unrest between males and females today (particularly in American society and institutions)? If you were not aware of it, there is some major dissension and declension going on today, in the camp between males and females - noticeably in American society. I ended the last discussion by asking the all important question, what about gender roles, and how do they factor into the equation? For after all, weren't men and women placed here on earth and assigned specific tasks, roles and responsibilities by the creator? And weren't their respective roles assigned based on upon their respective genders by god? And since God assigned each of them their respective roles, aren't both men and women obliged to remain within their role assignments?

Cultural anthropologists have written much about role differentiation, having determined that gender roles are based more upon myth, religion and culture, more than any other factor - convenience and necessity notwithstanding. But not much has been written about the grab for power.

If we were to closely examine the plot and the ostensible theme of the movie: Jurassic Park, one should notice, immediately, that there is more to this movie than the apparent recreation and reintroduction of predated and extinct animals from a period gone by (perhaps 65 million years ago). In fact there were several other themes running concurrently throughout the movie. For in addition to bringing back extinct pre-historic animals for the enjoyment of modern-day human beings (animals believed to have been made extinct thousands of years ago as a result of a meteorite that struck planet Earth), the over-arching theme had to do with the male-female dynamic, and the historical struggle between the two sexes, with females expected to occupy the subordinate position.

The movie dealt strongly with the historical problem of sonorous and brutal male domination of females. Although dealt with in a humorous manner, in the movie, the theme and setting of the movie was not new at all. The setting was a spoof of the original Garden of Eden, man-woman-animal survival that is recorded in the Christian Bible. From the Bible we all learned about the original garden paradise that was created and existed in what we know today as modern-day Iraq. Eden was created by a male God (or an all male triune God-head if you are a trinitarian). And the male God after creating the setting, placed animals, vegetation, and humans - both male and female into this idyllic setting.

And just as it occured in Eden, eventually everything went wrong and the humans were extirpated. The failure in Eden, according to the Apostle Paul - who was male - occurred as a result of Eve having been deceived. The Apostle, former Pharisee of Pharisees, emphasized the fact that it was Eve who was deceived and not the man. Paul seemed to be far more forgiving of and willing to overlook Adam's failure to obey God's (captioned as a male) instructions and edicts that were apparently made directly to Adam and not Eve. In fact, he was apparently so worked about women, that he reportedly never married. Now there is some discussion about whether he had actually ever been married or not, but we will save that discussion for another time.

Why was Paul so hard on Eve? I suspect it was because Eve was female, and there was clearly an ongoing cultural gender bias that persisted even during Paul's lifetime, it was a time when women were clearly devalued. And Paul being a Pharisee of Pharisees and of the strictest sect I might add, held to Pharasaical dogma without question). In fairness to Paul, he seemed to have evolved later and gotten over his bias by the time he wrote his letter to the church members in the region of Galatia.

How much damage did Paul do, given his animus towards women and his prior writings that preceded his evolution? One can only imagine for the problem seems to persist even until today, especially in the church! There are statistics that show that the most dominating men on earth are men who have been raised in fundamentalist religions, sects or denominations! Like Paul, the attitude of most Christian men is the carnal, I AM THE BOSS, understood to mean and God Wants It To Be That Way!

It is also interesting to note that one of the key books of the canon, the book of Hebrews, which is often attributed to the Apostle Paul (albeit most scholars agree that we don't know who wrote the book), may have been written under a pseudonym. And, the actual writer may have been 'a female', possibly Syntche. At least that is what some scholars believe. Come on folks, don't get mad at the Rev, but even I have to admit that the canon contains books that were written from a male perspective, and a historical and cultural male bias.

A woman's role was simple, she was to submit to the man, have his babies and then continue submitting to the man. Furthermore in the pre circum-Mediterranean culture, the female was also responsible for setting up the tents (during migration), dismantling the tents, tending the gardens, managing the female children, completing all other servile taks..., while the men usually sat in the Gate. Folks, nothing in the male power-hungry attitude was, or can be construed today as being reflective of the spirit of God (as it appears to have been sanctioned in the canon). I cannot think of one woman that God was condescending towards. So what spirit insists upon their being existent cruel male-domination of females or anyone else for that matter. Its not God!

Today, we must interpret the meaning of some scriptures in consideration of the time and the timeframe that they were written in. Jesus, later came to set the captives free, especially females, I suspect. It would appear to me that females have been in bondage, for long enough.

Why was Christ's proclamation, that he came to set captives free and to loose bonds, lost on males, many of whom religiously sought out liberation for themselves as well as their male counterparts!

What was Eve's real downfall, from the perspective of the Apostle and his other male contemporaries? Why were these men so hard on Eve given that Adam also disobeyed God's instructions? In fact, when God interrogated the two about had occured, Adam quickly pointed out that it was the woman that God gave him, that caused his downfall. What Eve was really guilty of, I suspect, was that in short, she violated the principle of male domination. Eve like most females live within male-domination systems and you don't have to tell them that. We must stoop blaming the recipients of male-cruely for our own animus and carnal behaviors!

In short, God was male, Adam was male, Eve was a female and she disobeyed both of them, which was an affront (similar to what all of the men in the kingdom of Persia felt when Queen Vashti disobeyed King Ahasuerus). We even have a minister in the AME Church today, named Reverend Vashti McKenzie. I can hear James Brown singing in the background, agreeing with the Apostle Paul that, "What Is Happening to A Man's World". Paul, we all know missed it on a few occasions in the past himself and had to be knocked to the ground on the Road to Damascus in order to help him to see the light. Paul didn't have a female companion to blame for his shortcomings or for his downfall.

If Paul's sentiments were correct, only Eve should have been banned from the Garden. Well, from my point of view, the Serpent should have been banned - given that God spoke to the serpent and said, 'BECAUSE YOU DID THIS', again, 'don't taze me bro'! But factually, Satan, planned the whole thing ahead of time, and in the final analysis both Adam and Eve were actually deceived.

In Summary for Today:
Now what part does the female principle play in either paradise? And how often was God mentioned in either paradise? And, how often do we invoke the name of God today in order to enforce unfair policies and practices? And what happened to, do unto others as you would have them to do unto you, and Liberation Theology? Let's pick that up next time, for clearly the feminine principle was overlooked and ignored in both stories and was forced to give way to gender role domination.

And having said that, the Rev does not believe that Almighty God could have been a chauvinist - or that he would given orders to hand out knuckle sandwiches in order to force his will upon anyone. At the same time I still believe that most males are chauvinistic in terms of their attitudes (me too) and behaviors towards women. We have got to 'keep her in-check', its the rule; it goes with being male - that's what we were taught during my generation!

Being born again tells me something altogether different; and at times I find that what the spirit says is more in agreement with the prophecy of in the book that bears his name, than many other biblical texts which I find to be in conflict with the promise of the last days. Males, can it be that God is trying to undo our long-held confusion over entrenched gender role biases? Are we quenching the spirit, even as we go about trying to sublimate and subordinate the expression of females? Something is wrong with the story of Genesis, from the Rev's perspective. Don't taze me for saying that, however, I wonder at times if the story had been once manipulated by males.

One thing that do know that what came out of Genesis is not consistent with the God that we learn about in the New Covenant. Did tampering take place? Factually, for those of you who believe that 'the canon' is the inerrant word of God; it has been tampered with - we know that already!

Are some women angry over their lifetime sentence of being suppressed? Who wouldn't be? Which side is the Reverend on? How about the side of right!

peace & grace,
The Rev

Addenda: I heard a cute story the other day. Apparently, Adam and Even were walking along with their son. And just as they passed by the entrance to the Garden of Eden, the son noticed that they never went inside, asked, dad, how come we never go in there. And Adam replied, because that is the place where yo momma messed up with the snake!

to be continued in Part III...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...