This blog is so old people used to find it through AltaVista.
From February 4, 2014, “Eve is ‘under the Curse,’ but Adam is blessed“:
The idea, again, is based on an interpretation of that story in Genesis 3. But that interpretation is not consistently applied. And this inconsistency, it seems to me, suggests that this interpretation is not being honestly implied. It seems to be a double-standard — a duplicitous standard. …
The very same people who insist that “in pain you shall bring forth children” is a sacred duty and a holy obligation for women never, ever suggest the same thing about the toil and sweat of men.
A woman who evades the “Curse” of painful childbirth through the false gods of medical technology is viewed with suspicion. She is portrayed as irreverent, somehow, for failing to embrace her punishment. But what of the millions of men — white-collar executives, investors, the idle rich, and the uncalloused managerial class who eat their bread without ever being subject to sweat and toil? No such suspicion attaches to them.
Men are congratulated for avoiding the pain, toil and sweat of their “Curse.” They are, within the church, celebrated as particularly and deservedly blessed by God.
Is there some principled explanation for this double standard? Is there some unspoken variable that would account for these two opposite interpretations of this one story? Is there something I’m missing here — something that could explain this as anything other than the simplest explanation for what appears to be happening here?
Because the simplest explanation is that this is simply crude dishonesty in service of cruel misogyny.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In