Well it is the bible. I think really the only difference between your view and mine is that I'm cutting the story tons of slack considering where and when it came from. If it had been written today, it certainly wouldn't be feminist by any means.
Also, you've convinced me that there's room here for a badass feminist reinvisioning of the story. If only I were a writer...
There's a Vashti story in the book "Sisters at Sinai," which contains modern midrashim by Rabbi Jill Hammer. (I haven't read it recently so I don't remember what it's like.) I'm sure there are others out there as well.
I agree with the previous statement about "feminist" being relative to the time and place. Which stories in the Tanakh do you consider more satisfactory in that regard? You mentioned four. Deborah: comments that Barak will be punished for asking a woman to help him. Miriam: gets punished for speaking up against Moses. Hannah: accomplishes her goal, that's fair, but her goal is "have a child." Ruth is just as obedient to Naomi as Esther is to Mordecai (and uses sexuality in a similar way).
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, btw. I don't feel the need for you to be convinced by my points about Esther (or any of these women); just curious to understand your perspective better.
Oh, one more thing I almost forgot. I'm amused by this alleged "strong message about ... obeying your husband." I *completely* read that as a joke (again, with support from ancient midrash). Yes, it's what King A. says and he means it, but I think the point is that he's trying to regulate things that are out of his control and that aren't even reasonable.
Is this response directed at me or Ori? I think I completely agree with you, so I am going to assume the latter. If I gave the impression that I didn't, I apologize.
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."
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.
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.
See, what I find fun about wrestling with religious texts is not giving them any slack - is saying, okay, yes, product of time and culture and so forth, but we still have to deal with this story. My favorite example here is the whole bit in Genesis about how, pre-Flood, the Lord wants us to be vegetarians, and only afterwards does He relent on eating meat. Does that suggest that it's more virtuous to be a vegetarian, and that eating meat is not really the preferred option? I don't like that idea - because I like meat - but it does make me uncomfortable. The temptation is to just ignore that section or to say "don't worry, superseded by later rules!", but it's right there in the text.
Oh yes, I am not judging you for confronting the text without any slack-cutting. I agree that can be fun. Just commenting on where I thought our difference of perspective was coming from.
Also, I think you broke my brain. But actually Vashti/Esther Slash could totally work. Is it possible to write fanfic in the Bibleverse??? I'm getting all sorts of vague possibilities as to where this could go but aside from a very strong feeling that it could go somewhere very entertaining (with some mild slash content), I haven't got much.
Umm....there's tons of it on the net. Along with the Greek mythology slash. I have avoided it on grounds of not wanting my brain to hurt. But I know it's out there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Also, you've convinced me that there's room here for a badass feminist reinvisioning of the story. If only I were a writer...
(no subject)
I agree with the previous statement about "feminist" being relative to the time and place. Which stories in the Tanakh do you consider more satisfactory in that regard? You mentioned four. Deborah: comments that Barak will be punished for asking a woman to help him. Miriam: gets punished for speaking up against Moses. Hannah: accomplishes her goal, that's fair, but her goal is "have a child." Ruth is just as obedient to Naomi as Esther is to Mordecai (and uses sexuality in a similar way).
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, btw. I don't feel the need for you to be convinced by my points about Esther (or any of these women); just curious to understand your perspective better.
Oh, one more thing I almost forgot. I'm amused by this alleged "strong message about ... obeying your husband." I *completely* read that as a joke (again, with support from ancient midrash). Yes, it's what King A. says and he means it, but I think the point is that he's trying to regulate things that are out of his control and that aren't even reasonable.
(no subject)
(no subject)
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."
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
See, what I find fun about wrestling with religious texts is not giving them any slack - is saying, okay, yes, product of time and culture and so forth, but we still have to deal with this story. My favorite example here is the whole bit in Genesis about how, pre-Flood, the Lord wants us to be vegetarians, and only afterwards does He relent on eating meat. Does that suggest that it's more virtuous to be a vegetarian, and that eating meat is not really the preferred option? I don't like that idea - because I like meat - but it does make me uncomfortable. The temptation is to just ignore that section or to say "don't worry, superseded by later rules!", but it's right there in the text.
(no subject)
Also, I think you broke my brain. But actually Vashti/Esther Slash could totally work. Is it possible to write fanfic in the Bibleverse??? I'm getting all sorts of vague possibilities as to where this could go but aside from a very strong feeling that it could go somewhere very entertaining (with some mild slash content), I haven't got much.
(no subject)
(no subject)