It is has been noted that there are only 20 women on the Biblioglosphere as compared to 270 men recently.
April DeConick blames it on an invisibility of women religious scholars that seems to be prevalent.
True to form, Jim West had to give his two cents in as pope of the Biblioblogs. Two weeks ago, Jim blamed racial minorities for the stereotypes they are cast as over and again without examining the histories of oppression or histories behind these stereotypes as I pointed out.
Jim now is saying that it is women who have only themselves to blame, that it is they who make the free choice not to blog.
Is this necessarily true? What is my opinion of all of this?
Once again, Jim is only partially correct. It has been my experience that the scholarship of women when it comes to religious studies is often looked down upon and definitely ignored all together by seminaries that are closed to women ( you know, the institutions that have theologies in line with denominations that refuse women ordination or the opportunity to teach men). But also, it is possible, and I have witnessed, that the scholarship of women who may perhaps be in biblical studies (in liberal seminaries, yes), is scoffed at and referred to as contextual, and never taken seriously just because feminism is so radical and only means female reverse sexism, or was that female chauvinism, Rob? Most male biblical and religious scholars do not know the difference between second wave and third wave feminism, and nor do they care. In general, the scholarship of women and racial minorities are just looked down upon, never really assigned as central required texts for courses, and are always contested because these works come from contested bodies and spaces. James Cone, for example, is called a reverse racist in evangelical circles without seminarians taking seriously his arguments and consistently looking over the fact that Cone cites European sources such as Karl Barth and Albert Camus.
Opening minds, opening books, and closing canons?
I’m black, remember.
Truth and Peace,
Rod
September 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM
fantastic, Rod! So the answer is Yes?
September 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM
unambiguously YES.
And I do not foresee any response from Jim, just like the last time when I responded and corrected his errors.
Cuz, he doesn’t have to take my word for it!
September 3, 2009 at 3:05 PM
rod,
sometimes you must simply call them as you see them. dr. west did so, and that’s his right i suppose, but you justifiably did so too, reminding us readers that oversimplifications will no longer do, nope, not any more.
sehr gut mein freund
mf
September 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM
[...] by biblioblogtop50 on September 3, 2009 Rodney A. Thomas makes the good point – a point which should alreadyhave been viewed as so obviously correct that it need not [...]
September 3, 2009 at 5:27 PM
It’s a wonder DeConick ever ended up at Rice since women biblical scholars are so looked down upon. The simple fact that your missing is that many women decide to focus on their ‘maternal instincts.’ True some of the ‘instincts’ are really culturally conditioned, but there is much to say about the psychological and physiological make up of women. One reason men are into ’scholarship’ is because it corresponds to ego, something that women naturally have less of a problem with. Men publish and publish and publish with the motivation of pride and respect. Everyone needs to stop crying victim and wake up and smell the roses.
September 3, 2009 at 9:35 PM
rob k,
you wrote, “Everyone needs to stop crying victim and wake up and smell the roses.” but, not everyone has access to the roses, and there really are victims in this world. just a thought
September 3, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Mike,
You just earned the quote of the day!
September 3, 2009 at 9:49 PM
[...] commented on my post concerning Jim West’s blame the victim game: rob [...]
September 7, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Isn’t it possible that a religious tradition that has a prayer thanking God for not making me a woman (Judaism) and references to keeping women silent in the churches might not be fertile ground for a lot of women to blog about? I mean why would any woman want to spend one minute more dwelling on Gen 3:16 then they have to. Seriously, if women are religious it is because it is something they have learned to accept or endure – like that original curse which visits them each 28 days.
September 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM
I do not know why women would accept oppressive religious structures myself. I know that their choices are restricted and so their options are not open, however, I do know that within all religions there is a strain of liberation, justice and equality that women can appeal in order to speak up for their God-given dignity.
December 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM
[...] there is one thing that I hate more than blaming the victim is when persons, who have a voice in the academy and society, and a predominant one at [...]