The Female Standard:

Laura Tringali Sobieski
{"title":"The Female Standard:","authors":"Laura Tringali Sobieski","doi":"10.6017/lv.v11i1.13073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The year 2020 has made plain many injustices present in the systems and worldviews of American society. In a divisive election year, the factor of “electability” was of key importance in the effort to nominate a candidate to oppose the sitting President. In considering the question “Where do we go from here?”, we ought to wrestle with our communal decision that the female candidates vying for the Democratic nomination were categorically unelectable or less electable simply because of their femaleness. This paper seeks to explore how interpretation of our Scriptures has played a role in sustaining the societal structures which foster inequality. And, more importantly, how our Scriptures can fruitfully be interpreted to validate female leadership. \nUsing the example of the story of Martha and Mary in the Gospel of Luke, this paper will problematize modern readings that have created a culture of devaluing female leadership. The history of interpretation of the story of Martha and Mary has evolved in many phases, the most relevant being that interpretation has narrowed from a story of discipleship for all Christians to a story that only has meaning for women. Reflecting on both Scripture and current gender studies commentary, this paper will call into question the unreasonable expectations of American women and consider where we ought to go from here.","PeriodicalId":109688,"journal":{"name":"Lumen et Vita","volume":"468 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lumen et Vita","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6017/lv.v11i1.13073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The year 2020 has made plain many injustices present in the systems and worldviews of American society. In a divisive election year, the factor of “electability” was of key importance in the effort to nominate a candidate to oppose the sitting President. In considering the question “Where do we go from here?”, we ought to wrestle with our communal decision that the female candidates vying for the Democratic nomination were categorically unelectable or less electable simply because of their femaleness. This paper seeks to explore how interpretation of our Scriptures has played a role in sustaining the societal structures which foster inequality. And, more importantly, how our Scriptures can fruitfully be interpreted to validate female leadership. Using the example of the story of Martha and Mary in the Gospel of Luke, this paper will problematize modern readings that have created a culture of devaluing female leadership. The history of interpretation of the story of Martha and Mary has evolved in many phases, the most relevant being that interpretation has narrowed from a story of discipleship for all Christians to a story that only has meaning for women. Reflecting on both Scripture and current gender studies commentary, this paper will call into question the unreasonable expectations of American women and consider where we ought to go from here.
女性标准:
2020年暴露了美国社会体系和世界观中存在的许多不公正现象。在一个分裂的选举年,“可选性”因素在提名候选人反对现任总统的努力中至关重要。在考虑“我们从这里往哪里去?”,我们应该与我们的共同决定作斗争,即仅仅因为女性身份,争夺民主党提名的女性候选人就绝对不可能当选或不太可能当选。本文旨在探讨圣经的解释如何在维持助长不平等的社会结构中发挥作用。更重要的是,我们的圣经如何被有效地解释为认可女性领导力。以《路加福音》中马大和马利亚的故事为例,本文将对现代解读中贬低女性领导力的文化提出质疑。马大和马利亚故事的历史解释经历了许多阶段,最相关的是,解释已经从所有基督徒的门徒故事缩小到一个只对女性有意义的故事。通过对圣经和当前性别研究评论的反思,本文将对美国女性的不合理期望提出质疑,并思考我们应该从这里走向何方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信