Thoughts on Purim

[orichalcum]

stone_and_star mentioned once, years ago, having sympathy for Vashti, the original Persian Queen whose dismissal and/or possible execution made room for Esther in the Persian court. This led to me musing tonight on the problems of the Book of Esther as a feminist text.



Vashti refused to display her beauty before the assembled court of Xerxes (Ahauserus), an act which violated Persian tradition and which would have publicly humiliated and dishonored her. His advisors warned that she must be punished, lest she set an example and cause other women not to respect their husbands' orders. In order to ensure women's obedience and respect, Xerxes exiles Vashti and sends messages to every part of his empire proclaiming "that a man should be ruler over his own household."

The new potential wives and concubines for Xerxes are picked on the basis of beauty alone, and Esther has 12 months of "beauty treatments" before the king falls for her and makes her queen. The first thing mentioned about her is her obedience to Mordecai's instructions to keep her nationality and religion secret. Her dominant characteristics are thus beauty and obedience. Later, Mordechai tells Esther to go plead the Jews' case before Xerxes; she does not come up with this plan on her own. She only consents when religiously and emotionally blackmailed by her father-figure. When Haman begs her for mercy, she allows Xerxes to think that Haman was sexually harassing her rather than pleading with her, and has him hanged. Then she takes his property, and then asks Xerxes to also hang Haman's ten sons.

I'm not sure how to deal with how this message of female submission and the importance of looking pretty in order to get favors from your husband, and whether it fundamentally undermines the tale of salvation and freedom from persecution that forms the reason for the celebration of Purim. Is it possible to praise Esther and Mordechai while pitying Haman's sons and being squeamish about their means of influence? How do I get beyond the image of Esther as the anti-Vashti, the vengeful pawn rather than the Queen?

As Velveteen Rabbi points out, this is also a story about a cycle of revenge and reversals, rather than forgiveness or compassion. It reminds me, somehow, of the old feminist fantasy trope of the rape-and-revenge stories - that the only way to create a female warrior figure was to have her be a rape victim who was hunting down her attackers. Can Esther only be powerful and virtuous when reacting to the threat of persecution and death? Other Biblical heroines - Deborah, Miriam, Hannah, Ruth - are noted and praised for their proactive stances and affirmative pursuit of justice and happiness. In the end, I'm not sure I'd want a daughter dressing up as Esther - any more than I'd want her dressing up as Ariel or Sleeping Beauty. Give me a role model who isn't defined by her relationship with a guy and her pretty face. (Which raises the question - do any Biblical women pass the Bechdel test???)

Comments

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

I'd add Yael and Judith to the list, incidentally - who also use sexuality, yes, but again in proactive, patriotic ways. I think the major distinction I'm drawing is between women who are active and those who are reactive - although the question of textual reaction to the acts of these women is certainly important, you're right. So what frustrates me about Esther is that I feel like she is shown acting out of personal fear, rather than selfless patriotism or devotion to others, and then she's really brutal to Haman and his family.

Regarding the joke issue - interesting. Coming from the perspective of someone who studies strongly misogynistic cultures, this sounded like a reiteration of basic patriarchal principles; the King is reasserting his and all husbands' authority, because Vashti has challenged it. He's just demonstrated his control by punishing her so strongly for her act of defiance.

You seem to want to separate "feminism" from "use of female sexuality," which I find intriguing here. I would argue that any ancient text which shows a woman as a clever, independent agent acting in pursuit of praiseworthy goals is feminist, because it does not (like most ancient texts) reduce women to property or male appendages. The primary tools available to women in the ancient world were their sexuality and their familial connections; I don't criticize them or see it as unfeminist when they use those successfully. How else exactly is Yael supposed to get close enough to Sisera to kill him? To view it otherwise suggests that women are only capable of virtuous acts when asexual or when "acting like men."

[stone-and-star.livejournal.com]

Yes, the king is reasserting his authority - he's not joking. I just have the sense that there's kind of a wink to the audience from the author at this point.

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't wrestle with ancient texts the way they are! I totally agree with that. But I don't always think you can pick a piece of text out and not look at later parts. Like in the flood story, it's significant that vegetarianism was preferred, but also that it was superseded.

I also do agree that stories of women acting as independent agents count as feminist. My point was that I don't see Esther as being very different from the other women you mentioned. Both Esther and Ruth have reactive elements to their behavior. They both use their sexuality to achieve goals that they decide are important after a family member talks to them about the situation. You say that Esther seems to be acting out of fear; to me Ruth seems kind of passive in the Boaz situation. And why is Esther acting out of personal fear any worse than Hannah acting out of personal distress at being childless?

Yael is a good point. I can't argue with Yael being an active agent (though I don't like the violence in that story).

Cruel to Haman - he was going to wipe out the Jews, I'm not sympathetic. Cruel to his sons - I hear that. I've never known what to do with the emphasis on the sons.

I'm not familiar with the book of Judith at all - I'm out of my element once we leave the Tanakh.

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether Judith was counted in your apocryphal texts.

Yael's morality is definitely questionable, but certainly not her actions. :)

Re Haman -yeah, there it's a matter of justice, although allowing the king to think he's molesting her seems questionable. It's really the sons where I get distressed.

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

I think Ruth is passive re Boaz, but not initially with regard to Naomi.