one hopes, change men” (Whitehead and Barrett 2001:14-15). The sociology of masculinity is highly inspired by feminist theories and hence fights the same cause for gender justice.
Masculinity studies are not to be confused with masculinism. Nadar (2009:2) makes a clear distinction between the two. She defines masculinism as “the antithesis to feminism. It is an ideological system which not only believes in, but actively promotes male power.” Masculinism therefore naturalizes the superior position of males over females, while masculinity studies serve to deconstruct this ideology in order to combat patriarchy and to redefine masculine identity.
5.1.2 Conceptions of masculinities (sex and gender) in the ancient world
Evidence from major writers in antiquity, stretching over five centuries (who include Xenophon, 428-354 B.C.E.; Aristotle, 384-322 B.C.E.; Philo, 15 B.C.E.-50 C.E.; and Hierocles 117-138 C.E.) has revealed, that in the ancient world, the cosmos was perceived as gender-divided, with certain roles, tasks, and objects appropriately assigned to each gender. The roles that were seen as appropriate for men were the ‘outdoor’ or ‘public’ roles, which included agriculture and civic affairs. Women, on the other hand, were associated with the ‘private sphere’ or ‘indoor’
activities. These included child rearing, preparation of meals and production of clothing (Neyrey 2003: 44, 49-51). Human sexual organs were used to illustrate these spheres.83
In the ancient world as Conway observes, biological determinants counted little in the definitions of sex and gender.
84
83 Since male genitals are located outside the body, men were associated with the outside ‘public’ sphere, while women were associated with the ‘private’ ‘inside’ sphere, as dictated by the location of their genitals (see Neyrey 2003:51-54).
The female sex was not defined as the opposite of the biological male sex but, instead, was regarded “as an imperfect, incomplete version of man” (Conway 2003:474).
Man was believed to be naturally hotter than woman was, and this ‘natural’ bodily heat accounted for his superior position. This view is evident in literary works in early centuries.
Aristotle for instance wrote:
84 The equation of a person’s sex with biological anatomy and gender with social construction is a later development which only came in the twenty-first century with contemporary scholarship.
In human beings, the male is much hotter in nature than the female… It is due to this…that the perfecting of the female embryos is inferior to that of male ones, (since their uterus is inferior in condition) (quoted in Conway (2003:474 cf. Vorster 2008:117- 123).
Galen, a second century physician, posed a similar view when he wrote:
Now just as mankind (sic) is the most perfect of all animals, so within mankind (sic) the man is more perfect than the woman, and the reason for his perfection is his excess of heat, for heat is Nature’s primary instrument (quoted in Conway 2003:474).
This belief is echoed by Philo of Alexandria who stated: “It is said by naturalists that the female is nothing else than an imperfect male” (quoted in Conway 2003:475). In the Greco-Roman world, the act of penetration by the penis was a mark of manhood. The body that was penetrated specifically by a penis, was therefore the inferior one. Masculinity was associated with the Roman sexual protocol, which defined men as “impenetrable penetrator” (see Walter 1997) Women were regarded as ‘passive’ sexual partners.85
In the Greek world, gender was also constructed through a dualistic view of reality. The Greeks had a dualistic view of mind-body. They held, that in a human being there is both spirit and matter. Spirit is good, higher and better, while, on the other hand, matter is evil, dangerous and lower than the spirit. The male is identified with the spirit, while the female is identified with A male, who was penetrated by another male in a sexual act, was said to have been passive as well. Therefore, not all males were men.
Male slaves for instance fell in the category of the passive, because they were at the disposal of their masters to penetrate them.
The other male characteristic in the Mediterranean world was mastery of others and/or oneself (Moore and Anderson 1998:250). This trait is common in Greek and Latin literary and philosophical texts. Thus, it was man’s right to dominate others, who included his wife, children, slaves etc (see similar view about the authority of paterfamilias in the Roman Empire, in chapter three).
85 Feminist scholars such as Donaldson and Kwok (2002: 6-8, Dube 1998) therefore rightly critique feminization of
the explored (penetrated) lands and the use of female gender as the symbol of the colonized, because this feminization serves a similar purpose, namely to subject woman and the colonized into a passive and inferior status.
matter, and hence male is superior to female (Rakoczy 2004:33). This Greek dualistic view exerted some influence on the construction of woman among the early Christian writers.
In the Jewish world, the rabbinic construction of masculinity86 was not unique to the Jews, but rather “it only slightly reconfigures elements found in both Jewish-Hellenistic writings and in the literature of the non-Jewish elite, especially moralists and philosophers,” and also from the pre- rabbinic Jewish wisdom tradition (Satlow 1996:20-21). The rabbis drew at least two themes from this literature. First, self-mastery which was a condition for a life of the mind and which was
“gendered as characteristically male”87 (Satlow 1996:21). For them, this uniquely male trait had to be used in the pursuit of the divine through the study of the Torah. His second theme was the pursuit of the life of the mind. Manliness was associated with reason, while femininity was associated with passion (see e.g. 4 Macc 15:29-16:4, and also the gender-biased writings of Ben Sira88
The scholars who formulated the classical texts of Rabbinic Judaism were part of a world that was decidedly patriarchal, a world in which women lived very much in the shadow of their husbands. Furthermore, these classical texts are the product of a literate male elite, who fully accepted the values of the man’s world in which they lived.
in Sir. 9, 19, 25, 36,42). For the Rabbis manhood was a state to be achieved and therefore maintained through constant proof that one is a man.
The above analysis of gender construction in the ancient world and in the Jewish world reveals a clear link between the two, namely that Hebrew and Jewish perceptions were not unique but owed a lot to the construction of masculinity in the ancient world generally. I therefore concur with Satlow (1996:20-21) above, and also with Maher (2006). According to Maher (2006:63):
89
86 For full details of the rabbinic construction of masculinity, see Satlow (1996:19-40). He presents the views that were written and compiled over the course of five centuries (first to sixth century C.E.) in rabbinic literature.
87 The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs portrays women as “constitutionally unable to restrain themselves” (see T. Reub. 5:1-7; T. Judah 13; T. Joseph 6:7, 10:2-3; Ep. Arist. 250, cited in Satlow 1996:22).
88 Ben Sira held that women are inherently evil and ought not to be empowered (Sir. 9:1-9, 42: 12). His literature was originally written in Hebrew.
89 This is not to deny the dignity and honour, which the rabbinic literature (cf. Job 5:24) and the Talmud accorded to a woman. Both heed husbands to honour their wives, due to the sensitivity of the latter. Rabbinic literature also approves the image of an ideal woman in Prov 31:10-13. However, if the husband is to honour his wife on account
I therefore conclude this section by arguing that the patriarchal culture and structures pre-date the literary and the legal sources, that have governed gender relations throughout the centuries.
In other words, the views about the superiority of man and the inferiority of woman, that found their way into the literary and legal sources and systems of the Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians, were based on already existing sexist views on gender from the ancient world.
It is in this case evident, that Paul was operating within the existing patriarchal structures of the Ancient Near East whose view of gender had already found its way into the legal and imperial systems of the Greek and the Roman Empires. In the following section, I will show how the Church Fathers, who were operating within similar structures as Paul, developed Paul’s perception of the image of God in relation to gender even further, by their exegesis of Paul’s texts, the accounts of the creation and the story of the fall in Genesis.