|
From
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on " Duck Dynasty" to Vatican
Enablers ...
Bilgrimage February 8, 2014
http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2014/02/from-rabbi-shmuley-boteach-on-duck.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FOPqpQ+%28Bilgrimage%29
[with video]
Here's what fascinates me in this
Media Matters video in which Gretchen Carlson of Fox News
interviews Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Wendy Griffith about "Duck
Dynasty" star Phil Robertson and his anti-gay comments:
Boteach says, "We have to stop making religion in
America about bashing gays," and no one appears to object.
But when he goes on to say, "See, the problem in
America is that we overlook all the heterosexual guys who are
raping women one in five," all hell breaks loose.
The problem with religion in America today is clearly
both about bashing gays and about protecting
heterosexual male power and privilege. The two are intrinsically
connected.
But when people go there--to the underlying objective
of the gay bashing, which is the screening of heterosexual male
power and privilege from all analysis or critique--hell breaks
loose. And isn't that fascinating to note?
In her book Out of the Depths: Women’s
Experience of Evil and Salvation, trans. and intro. Ann Patrick
Ware (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), Catholic feminist theologian
(and nun) Ivone Gebara states,
Institutionalized violence against women is not just
one specific act of violence but a social arrangement, a
cultural construct geared to degrade one pole of humanity and
exalt the other (81).
And she also notes,
In one sense, patriarchy is a societal form of male
narcissism (a love of anything that is like me), manifest in
every cultural, political, and religious institution. Thus it is
easier for men to fight for any other cause of social justice
than for the cause of equal rights for women (141).
I think neither of these observations is beside the
point as we think about why we're not permitted to observe that
gay bashing is deeply rooted in systems that enforce heterosexual
male power and privilege--since the ultimate objective of those
systems is to keep the feminine (as in women and males seen as
feminized) under total subjection to the masculine.
It is hardly beside the point, is it, that the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, about whose recent
report media
enablers of the Vatican are now going ballistic, is chaired by a
woman--Kirsten Sandberg? Read
the heated rhetoric of Catholic Vatican enablers about how
"gender ideology" drives the U.N. Committee's work, and about the
"ignorance," "gross misunderstanding," and "arrogance" that
inform this work, and, if your eyes are open even a tiny bit,
you'll realize that you're reading a thinly disguised screed
about uppity women.
And what they must not be allowed to say. Not to men.
Not to an institution headed by men, which protects heterosexual
male power and privilege.
And this is, of course, precisely why so many
"mainstream" journalists are willing to take seriously these
kinds of malicious, immature, misogynistic screeds written by
Catholic journalists to defend the Vatican's indefensible
handling of child abuse cases: those "mainstream" journalists
have every bit as much invested in keeping uppity women in their
places as do Catholic officials and their Catholic journalistic
enablers.
|