Women oppression in a patriarchal society
WOMEN OPPRESSION IN A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY
BY
JUSTIN NNAEMEKA ONYEUKAZIRI
INTRODUCTION
The history of civilization has been the history of women oppression and the history of patriarchal hegemony. The common denomination in world civilizations from the civilization of the Ancient Near East (Sumerian, Mesopotamian and Egyptian), through the classical civilizations (Iranian, Indian, Greek, Roman and Chinese) to modern civilization (led by Europe and America) is that all civilizations have been a product of and in reality a patriarchal society. All religions without exception produced by these patriarchal societies have been the most effective instruments of marginalization and oppression of women. To this effect patriarchal society and religion are two sides of a coin that has shaped and is still shaping the world-view of humanity which holds oppressive maxim such as "this world is men's world", "women are weaker sex", "women are basically biological beings" and so on. Yes no doubt in the history of civilization there have been account of very few women that distinguished themselves and became notable women of substance in patriarchal society even since the Sumerian's civilization, (their mythologies supports this postulation) and as we find in the history of ancient Egypt, these exception only more strongly proves the reality of women oppression. This is because it was only women in history that confront the reality of male domination that left marks in history and that are still making marks in history. It is on this backdrop that this write-up aims at critically discussing the reality of Women Oppression in a Patriarchal Society. It would be contended that there is no ontological difference between male and female and that human society is not by nature patriarchal and also that the Judeo-Christian religious system has been the most effective factor that has shaped the patriarchal world-view of modern society and hence that the most efficient cause for a change in attitude is the deconstruction of the patriarchal and andocentric interpretations of God's revelation in the Scriptures. We hope to achieve this as follows: clarifying key terms in the topic, investigating the question of the anthropological difference between men and women, exposing the relationship between the Bible and patriarchal society and a need to shift from a patriarchal society to a "Christarchal" society.
CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
It was since the time of Philosophers of Language like the brilliant Ludwig Wittgenstein that it became clearer that the problem of philosophy and by extension all epistemologies is the problem of language, the ambiguity and delusion of language. Human beings conceive and imagine more then they are able to express, that is we always suffer the poverty of language in expressing our ideas. Thus it is indubitably important to clarify the meaning of the key terms that constitute the topic of this write-up: woman, oppression and patriarchal society.
Woman—the debate is still on among critical minds if one is a woman or a man by nature or by nurture that is if one is born a man or a woman or one becomes a man or a woman by either self or societal or cultural decision. According to the brilliant female French Philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, in her work The Second Sex, "it is not nature that defines woman; it is she who defines herself by dealing with nature on her own account in her emotional life." (The Second Sex, extant in Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy History & Problems, USA: McGraw-Hill,1994, p. 787) This implies that for Simone de Beavoir, it does not necessarily follow that every female human being is a woman, that we are born a male, a female or even as an hermaphrodite, but becomes a man or a woman by nurture. Hence a woman is not "tota mulier in utero", that is a woman is not synonymous to a womb or ovary. Hence the argument here is that it is not the genital make up that makes one a man or a woman, the genitals only distinguishes human beings as male or female. So in this school of thought a woman is understood as a psycho-socio-political phenomenon not a biological or anatomical phenomenon. Despite the argument above, the New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition traditionally defines woman as "an adult human female; the female part of the human race."
Oppression—according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus oppression is "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power; something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power; a sense of being weighed down in body or mind." This means that oppression is tyranny against the physical and psychological wellbeing of a person.
PatriarchalSociety—to understand the meaning of the term patriarchal we shall first look at the etymology of the term patriarch. The word patriarch is made up of two terms, pater which in Latin means father and arches which means chief or principle. Hence a patriarchal society would be a society where fathers are the chief or principal decisive agent and controller of every activity: social, economic, political, intellectual and religious. Thus patriarchal society is parallel to androcentric society, a masculine dominated society where male interest and view points dominates and every orientations is understood and interpreted from the masculine starting point.
THE QUESTION OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMAN
The quest is to investigate whether there is ontological and anthropological difference between men and women. Simply put anthropology is the systematic study of the human persons (male and female) a human being distinct from other beings; while ontology is the critical study of being qua being. According to philosophical anthropology the human person is a "homo rationalis" a rational being. For cultural anthropology the human person is a cultural being. For Christian theological anthropology the human person is the "imago dei", the image of God. And according to social anthropology the human person is a social animal. Thus from the above accounts anthropological speaking, even according to the Judeo-Christian anthropology rooted in the creation account of Genesis chapter 1: 26-28, there is no ontological difference between male or female or if you prefer man or woman, human being. Both women and men ontologically or naturally speaking have equal rational, social, cultural and religious capacity. Neither women nor men are born with any rational, social, cultural and religious advantages over the other.
Hence the only difference between male and female or man and woman is biological or anatomical cum physiological differences. And this biological difference is basically in respect to the reproductive faculties or capacities of a man and a woman, which is as a result of hormonal differences. This follows that it is not the presence of differentiated genitals in the male or female person that makes a person a human being and the presence of testosterone in male or oestrogen and progesterone in female that makes a person a human being; because if this is the case hermaphrodite would be disqualified to be human beings. Following the above argument it would be absurd to attribute specific sex role to either a man or a woman based on biological differentiation. According to Joyce Trebilcot "a sex role is a role performed only or primarily by persons of a particular sex." (Sex Roles: The Argument from Nature, extant in Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy History & Problems, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p.799). To this effect Plato in The Republic sustains that "there is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs either to woman or to man, as such. Natural gifts are to be found here and there in both creatures alike; and every occupation is open to both."(The Republic, Extant in Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy History & Problems, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p.796). What the argument against sex role is simply saying is that if there are special roles for men distinct from that for women in the society, every man or woman should be able to possess such specific sex role naturally or innately with any form of nurture or training or education, but conversely, given the same nurturing or education opportunity without cultural inhibitions, men or women with industry would be proficient in any role in the society that is not biological, for instance production of sperm or ovary or the nurturing of embryo in the womb by women.
So far we have attempted to demonstrate that critically, rationally and ontologically speaking there is no essential and fundamental difference between male and female or man and woman. The only difference is biological. And we sustain that the argument by some that consequent to the biological difference between male and female genders there is psychological differences which necessarily cause difference in the sex or social roles or functions of men and women in the society is uncritical, unscientific and ungrounded. Be that as it may we shall thus contend that the reality of male dominance in the religious, social, economic and political sphere of human society in history is neither consistent with natural law nor ordained by God, but is the product and handiwork of the male folks of humanity. Thus we asserts that the reality of the existence of patriarchal and androcentric society ought not to be the ideal society of humanity. Patriarchal society and androcentric society can not but be oppressive and tyrannical to the female folks of humanity. Thenceforth, patriarchal society is a product of culture created by male in favour of men in the society.
THE BIBLE AND PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY
The Judeo-Christian religion believes that God self-disclosed himself in the holy bible. Hence the bible contains divine revelation, God's Word, the breath of God. So the bible is the Word of God in human language. Hence Margaret N. Ralph holds that "the Bible from beginning to end, is the product of God's acting in and through his people." (And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms for Bible Lovers, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986, p.26) Thus the belief that the Bible is revelation is the belief that the bible is authoritative for searching the mind of God by the assistance of the Spirit of God for truth of faith and morals. Hence just as in modern society we have come to the knowledge that the intent of the Bible is purely religious and not science, it should also be noted that the Bible does not intent to teach humanity politics or how to govern the society. This is to say that the Bible is not necessarily a model for socio-political live. If that was the case most nations that are predominantly Christian would be erring gravely because they practice democracy which is a socio-political system foreign to the Biblical world and revelation. To this effect to appeal to the Bible as an authority to justify any socio-political system is as inappropriate as to appealing the Bible as an authority to justify Geography or other sciences.
The socio-political system inherent in the Bible is patriarchal and androcentric. The Bible is a sacred book created, sustained and taught by men in men's world-view, symbols and language. The sitz im laben of both the Old Testament (predominantly Ancient Near East) and the New Testament (Judeo-Greco-Roman) are patriarchal and androcentric. It was in these patriarchal and androcentric social and cultural context that God revealed, related and spoke to his people. Since this is the case Christians ought to make good effort to listen and hear the voice of God without accepting socio-cultural context that stands as inhibition to the integral development of humanity as a whole and the integral advancement of the dignity of the human person, man or woman. So it should be understood that God spoke to us and is still speaking with us through the Bible without sanctioning any oppressive metaphor or symbols in the Bible. This means that the patriarchal and androcentric cultural symbols in the Bible that marginalize and oppress women in the Bible should not be understood and accepted as God's revelation. This is because "the Bible is revelation in that it reveals the relationship between God and man. It tells us who God is, what our relationship with God is, and what we need to know in order to grow in that relationship." (Margaret N. Ralph, And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms for Bible Lovers, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986, p.26).
To this effect one of the fundamental steps to challenging the oppression and marginalization of women by men domination rooted in the patriarchal and androcentric society of our world is to deconstruct and reinterpret the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. This is because it is incontestable that the Bible is the most influential source of information that has and is still shaping the world-view and thought processes of humanity today especially Europe and America that hold there civilization to Christianity and The Bible. It is on this undignified relationship between the Bible and patriarchal society that Elisabeth Schussler Fioranza contends that "androcentric western language and patriarchal religion have ‘erased' women from history and made them ‘non-beings,' such feminists argue that biblical religion (and theology) is sexist to the core." (In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1990, p. xviii). It is to this effect that feminist theologian according to Elisabeth S. Fioranza quoted above "insists that all texts (biblical) are products of an androcentric patriarchal culture and history." Supporting this line of thought, Elizabeth A. Johnson contending the exclusive use of masculine metaphor in speaking about God in the Bible and in the Church sustains that "upon examination it becomes clear that this exclusive speech about God serves in manifold ways to support an imaginative and structural world that excludes or subordinates women. Wittingly or not, it undermines women's human dignity as equally created in the image of God." (She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse, New York: Crossroad, 1994, p.5) Hence Rosemary Chinnici, calls for a "re-imaging" of the religious experience enshrined in the Church and the Bible. According to Rosemary Chinnici, "re-imaging begins with refusing to use the safe and comfortable categories of traditional theological language and, by examining our experiences, developing new words which speak of our true religious experience." (Can Women Re-Image the Church? New York: Paulist Press, 1992, p. 38). In sum the Swiss theologian, Hans Kung in an interview with Newsweek warns that "we must fight the patriarchal misunderstanding of God." (Newsweek Interview, July 8, 1991)
FROM A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY TO A ‘CHRISTARCHAL' SOCIETY
This write-up is a radical call for a paradigm shift from a patriarchal socio-political society to a "Christarchal" socio-political society. By "Christarchal" society I mean a religious, social, political and economic society that is founded, informed, inspired and governed by the Spirit, teaching and life of Jesus Christ. The society which Jesus Christ preached and came to establish, the kingdom or reign of God, the reign of equity, justice, peace, love, freedom, unity and total well being of all, male and female or man and woman. A society which in the vision of Paul, the apostles to the Gentiles "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) A society where every one, man and woman who belong to Christ are equally co-heirs with Jesus Christ to the promise of God, the father of our lord and saviour Jesus. It is a society where every one in Jesus Christ through baptism is possessed of that one Holy Spirit, the another advocate, which proceeds from the Father through the Son; hence every one, men and women are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God." (1 Peter 2:9) A society where every one male and female are under the divine mercy of God for the sake of the sorrowful passion of Jesus Christ the redeemer of the whole world, because all, men and women "have all sinned and falling short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
In this re-imaging or re-interpretation of the human society based on the deconstruction of the oppressive patriarchal understanding of the society which in turn is based on androcentric interpretation of the Scriptures, which in this write-up we call "Christarchal" society; every one man and woman should have equal space and time, socio-political and religious opportunity to prove and distinguish oneself in the society. Men or women each person should be treated in accordance to his or her merit and rational industry; not in accordance to gender, culture, sentiment or religious beliefs or world-view. More so men should not see women as good for nothing but sexual gratification and child bearing machines; and in the other hand women should not idle away presenting themselves as if the only treasure they could offer to men is the mystery between there thigh. Thus women should liberate themselves from the erroneous and manipulative conception that a woman can not be fulfilled in life or else she is married.
CONCLUSION
This write-up aimed at critically discussing the reality of Women Oppression in a Patriarchal Society. It contended that there is no ontological difference between male and female and that human society is not by nature patriarchal and also that the Judeo-Christian religious system has been the most effective factor that has shaped the patriarchal world-view of modern society and hence that the most efficient cause for a change in attitude is the deconstruction of the patriarchal and andocentric interpretations of God's revelation in the Scriptures. We achieved this by clarifying key terms in the topic, investigating the question of the anthropological difference between men and women, exposing the relationship between the bible and patriarchal society and a need to shift from a patriarchal society to a "Christarchal" society.
BY
JUSTIN NNAEMEKA ONYEUKAZIRI
INTRODUCTION
The history of civilization has been the history of women oppression and the history of patriarchal hegemony. The common denomination in world civilizations from the civilization of the Ancient Near East (Sumerian, Mesopotamian and Egyptian), through the classical civilizations (Iranian, Indian, Greek, Roman and Chinese) to modern civilization (led by Europe and America) is that all civilizations have been a product of and in reality a patriarchal society. All religions without exception produced by these patriarchal societies have been the most effective instruments of marginalization and oppression of women. To this effect patriarchal society and religion are two sides of a coin that has shaped and is still shaping the world-view of humanity which holds oppressive maxim such as "this world is men's world", "women are weaker sex", "women are basically biological beings" and so on. Yes no doubt in the history of civilization there have been account of very few women that distinguished themselves and became notable women of substance in patriarchal society even since the Sumerian's civilization, (their mythologies supports this postulation) and as we find in the history of ancient Egypt, these exception only more strongly proves the reality of women oppression. This is because it was only women in history that confront the reality of male domination that left marks in history and that are still making marks in history. It is on this backdrop that this write-up aims at critically discussing the reality of Women Oppression in a Patriarchal Society. It would be contended that there is no ontological difference between male and female and that human society is not by nature patriarchal and also that the Judeo-Christian religious system has been the most effective factor that has shaped the patriarchal world-view of modern society and hence that the most efficient cause for a change in attitude is the deconstruction of the patriarchal and andocentric interpretations of God's revelation in the Scriptures. We hope to achieve this as follows: clarifying key terms in the topic, investigating the question of the anthropological difference between men and women, exposing the relationship between the Bible and patriarchal society and a need to shift from a patriarchal society to a "Christarchal" society.
CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
It was since the time of Philosophers of Language like the brilliant Ludwig Wittgenstein that it became clearer that the problem of philosophy and by extension all epistemologies is the problem of language, the ambiguity and delusion of language. Human beings conceive and imagine more then they are able to express, that is we always suffer the poverty of language in expressing our ideas. Thus it is indubitably important to clarify the meaning of the key terms that constitute the topic of this write-up: woman, oppression and patriarchal society.
Woman—the debate is still on among critical minds if one is a woman or a man by nature or by nurture that is if one is born a man or a woman or one becomes a man or a woman by either self or societal or cultural decision. According to the brilliant female French Philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, in her work The Second Sex, "it is not nature that defines woman; it is she who defines herself by dealing with nature on her own account in her emotional life." (The Second Sex, extant in Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy History & Problems, USA: McGraw-Hill,1994, p. 787) This implies that for Simone de Beavoir, it does not necessarily follow that every female human being is a woman, that we are born a male, a female or even as an hermaphrodite, but becomes a man or a woman by nurture. Hence a woman is not "tota mulier in utero", that is a woman is not synonymous to a womb or ovary. Hence the argument here is that it is not the genital make up that makes one a man or a woman, the genitals only distinguishes human beings as male or female. So in this school of thought a woman is understood as a psycho-socio-political phenomenon not a biological or anatomical phenomenon. Despite the argument above, the New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition traditionally defines woman as "an adult human female; the female part of the human race."
Oppression—according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus oppression is "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power; something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power; a sense of being weighed down in body or mind." This means that oppression is tyranny against the physical and psychological wellbeing of a person.
PatriarchalSociety—to understand the meaning of the term patriarchal we shall first look at the etymology of the term patriarch. The word patriarch is made up of two terms, pater which in Latin means father and arches which means chief or principle. Hence a patriarchal society would be a society where fathers are the chief or principal decisive agent and controller of every activity: social, economic, political, intellectual and religious. Thus patriarchal society is parallel to androcentric society, a masculine dominated society where male interest and view points dominates and every orientations is understood and interpreted from the masculine starting point.
THE QUESTION OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMAN
The quest is to investigate whether there is ontological and anthropological difference between men and women. Simply put anthropology is the systematic study of the human persons (male and female) a human being distinct from other beings; while ontology is the critical study of being qua being. According to philosophical anthropology the human person is a "homo rationalis" a rational being. For cultural anthropology the human person is a cultural being. For Christian theological anthropology the human person is the "imago dei", the image of God. And according to social anthropology the human person is a social animal. Thus from the above accounts anthropological speaking, even according to the Judeo-Christian anthropology rooted in the creation account of Genesis chapter 1: 26-28, there is no ontological difference between male or female or if you prefer man or woman, human being. Both women and men ontologically or naturally speaking have equal rational, social, cultural and religious capacity. Neither women nor men are born with any rational, social, cultural and religious advantages over the other.
Hence the only difference between male and female or man and woman is biological or anatomical cum physiological differences. And this biological difference is basically in respect to the reproductive faculties or capacities of a man and a woman, which is as a result of hormonal differences. This follows that it is not the presence of differentiated genitals in the male or female person that makes a person a human being and the presence of testosterone in male or oestrogen and progesterone in female that makes a person a human being; because if this is the case hermaphrodite would be disqualified to be human beings. Following the above argument it would be absurd to attribute specific sex role to either a man or a woman based on biological differentiation. According to Joyce Trebilcot "a sex role is a role performed only or primarily by persons of a particular sex." (Sex Roles: The Argument from Nature, extant in Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy History & Problems, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p.799). To this effect Plato in The Republic sustains that "there is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs either to woman or to man, as such. Natural gifts are to be found here and there in both creatures alike; and every occupation is open to both."(The Republic, Extant in Samuel E. Stumpf, Philosophy History & Problems, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p.796). What the argument against sex role is simply saying is that if there are special roles for men distinct from that for women in the society, every man or woman should be able to possess such specific sex role naturally or innately with any form of nurture or training or education, but conversely, given the same nurturing or education opportunity without cultural inhibitions, men or women with industry would be proficient in any role in the society that is not biological, for instance production of sperm or ovary or the nurturing of embryo in the womb by women.
So far we have attempted to demonstrate that critically, rationally and ontologically speaking there is no essential and fundamental difference between male and female or man and woman. The only difference is biological. And we sustain that the argument by some that consequent to the biological difference between male and female genders there is psychological differences which necessarily cause difference in the sex or social roles or functions of men and women in the society is uncritical, unscientific and ungrounded. Be that as it may we shall thus contend that the reality of male dominance in the religious, social, economic and political sphere of human society in history is neither consistent with natural law nor ordained by God, but is the product and handiwork of the male folks of humanity. Thus we asserts that the reality of the existence of patriarchal and androcentric society ought not to be the ideal society of humanity. Patriarchal society and androcentric society can not but be oppressive and tyrannical to the female folks of humanity. Thenceforth, patriarchal society is a product of culture created by male in favour of men in the society.
THE BIBLE AND PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY
The Judeo-Christian religion believes that God self-disclosed himself in the holy bible. Hence the bible contains divine revelation, God's Word, the breath of God. So the bible is the Word of God in human language. Hence Margaret N. Ralph holds that "the Bible from beginning to end, is the product of God's acting in and through his people." (And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms for Bible Lovers, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986, p.26) Thus the belief that the Bible is revelation is the belief that the bible is authoritative for searching the mind of God by the assistance of the Spirit of God for truth of faith and morals. Hence just as in modern society we have come to the knowledge that the intent of the Bible is purely religious and not science, it should also be noted that the Bible does not intent to teach humanity politics or how to govern the society. This is to say that the Bible is not necessarily a model for socio-political live. If that was the case most nations that are predominantly Christian would be erring gravely because they practice democracy which is a socio-political system foreign to the Biblical world and revelation. To this effect to appeal to the Bible as an authority to justify any socio-political system is as inappropriate as to appealing the Bible as an authority to justify Geography or other sciences.
The socio-political system inherent in the Bible is patriarchal and androcentric. The Bible is a sacred book created, sustained and taught by men in men's world-view, symbols and language. The sitz im laben of both the Old Testament (predominantly Ancient Near East) and the New Testament (Judeo-Greco-Roman) are patriarchal and androcentric. It was in these patriarchal and androcentric social and cultural context that God revealed, related and spoke to his people. Since this is the case Christians ought to make good effort to listen and hear the voice of God without accepting socio-cultural context that stands as inhibition to the integral development of humanity as a whole and the integral advancement of the dignity of the human person, man or woman. So it should be understood that God spoke to us and is still speaking with us through the Bible without sanctioning any oppressive metaphor or symbols in the Bible. This means that the patriarchal and androcentric cultural symbols in the Bible that marginalize and oppress women in the Bible should not be understood and accepted as God's revelation. This is because "the Bible is revelation in that it reveals the relationship between God and man. It tells us who God is, what our relationship with God is, and what we need to know in order to grow in that relationship." (Margaret N. Ralph, And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms for Bible Lovers, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986, p.26).
To this effect one of the fundamental steps to challenging the oppression and marginalization of women by men domination rooted in the patriarchal and androcentric society of our world is to deconstruct and reinterpret the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. This is because it is incontestable that the Bible is the most influential source of information that has and is still shaping the world-view and thought processes of humanity today especially Europe and America that hold there civilization to Christianity and The Bible. It is on this undignified relationship between the Bible and patriarchal society that Elisabeth Schussler Fioranza contends that "androcentric western language and patriarchal religion have ‘erased' women from history and made them ‘non-beings,' such feminists argue that biblical religion (and theology) is sexist to the core." (In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1990, p. xviii). It is to this effect that feminist theologian according to Elisabeth S. Fioranza quoted above "insists that all texts (biblical) are products of an androcentric patriarchal culture and history." Supporting this line of thought, Elizabeth A. Johnson contending the exclusive use of masculine metaphor in speaking about God in the Bible and in the Church sustains that "upon examination it becomes clear that this exclusive speech about God serves in manifold ways to support an imaginative and structural world that excludes or subordinates women. Wittingly or not, it undermines women's human dignity as equally created in the image of God." (She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse, New York: Crossroad, 1994, p.5) Hence Rosemary Chinnici, calls for a "re-imaging" of the religious experience enshrined in the Church and the Bible. According to Rosemary Chinnici, "re-imaging begins with refusing to use the safe and comfortable categories of traditional theological language and, by examining our experiences, developing new words which speak of our true religious experience." (Can Women Re-Image the Church? New York: Paulist Press, 1992, p. 38). In sum the Swiss theologian, Hans Kung in an interview with Newsweek warns that "we must fight the patriarchal misunderstanding of God." (Newsweek Interview, July 8, 1991)
FROM A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY TO A ‘CHRISTARCHAL' SOCIETY
This write-up is a radical call for a paradigm shift from a patriarchal socio-political society to a "Christarchal" socio-political society. By "Christarchal" society I mean a religious, social, political and economic society that is founded, informed, inspired and governed by the Spirit, teaching and life of Jesus Christ. The society which Jesus Christ preached and came to establish, the kingdom or reign of God, the reign of equity, justice, peace, love, freedom, unity and total well being of all, male and female or man and woman. A society which in the vision of Paul, the apostles to the Gentiles "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) A society where every one, man and woman who belong to Christ are equally co-heirs with Jesus Christ to the promise of God, the father of our lord and saviour Jesus. It is a society where every one in Jesus Christ through baptism is possessed of that one Holy Spirit, the another advocate, which proceeds from the Father through the Son; hence every one, men and women are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God." (1 Peter 2:9) A society where every one male and female are under the divine mercy of God for the sake of the sorrowful passion of Jesus Christ the redeemer of the whole world, because all, men and women "have all sinned and falling short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
In this re-imaging or re-interpretation of the human society based on the deconstruction of the oppressive patriarchal understanding of the society which in turn is based on androcentric interpretation of the Scriptures, which in this write-up we call "Christarchal" society; every one man and woman should have equal space and time, socio-political and religious opportunity to prove and distinguish oneself in the society. Men or women each person should be treated in accordance to his or her merit and rational industry; not in accordance to gender, culture, sentiment or religious beliefs or world-view. More so men should not see women as good for nothing but sexual gratification and child bearing machines; and in the other hand women should not idle away presenting themselves as if the only treasure they could offer to men is the mystery between there thigh. Thus women should liberate themselves from the erroneous and manipulative conception that a woman can not be fulfilled in life or else she is married.
CONCLUSION
This write-up aimed at critically discussing the reality of Women Oppression in a Patriarchal Society. It contended that there is no ontological difference between male and female and that human society is not by nature patriarchal and also that the Judeo-Christian religious system has been the most effective factor that has shaped the patriarchal world-view of modern society and hence that the most efficient cause for a change in attitude is the deconstruction of the patriarchal and andocentric interpretations of God's revelation in the Scriptures. We achieved this by clarifying key terms in the topic, investigating the question of the anthropological difference between men and women, exposing the relationship between the bible and patriarchal society and a need to shift from a patriarchal society to a "Christarchal" society.
Source...