Hi Dr. Bird. I recently subscribed. I am also following your podcast "Wild Olive" You made some interesting points about marriage and the biblical terminologies used. Definitely food for thought. Btw I love your accent 😊 Love from Jamaica 🇯🇲
What timing! I just got to this video while in the middle of reading Marriage and Sexual Relations in the World of the Hebrew Bible by Ken Stone, which also addresses the use of baal for lordship over women. This is a whole new aspect of the biblical nature of marriage for me. I can't wait until Amazon fulfills my Kindle version of your book on January 31st to learn more!
I also think we might take seriously the need to reject any notions of "returning" to these types of person to person relationships. Some people within our cultures today seem to want to own others like the "good ole days" either within terms of intimacy and / or economically through a given person's labor. I like the work of Nancy Fraser in deeply addressing women's unpaid labor as a major externality without which, in part, capitalism can not be said to be at all beneficial let alone even possible. I am specifically referring to her book, Cannibal Capitalism.
Thank you for the book rec. Gayle Rubin’s “The traffic in woman: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of sex,” is always rumbling around in the back of mind.
@@kariannecrysler640 but you say that as if they cared about accuracy and whatnot. 😂😉 If we assume that men are going to get some action once they have claimed a woman, then there is no reason to assume that status after the first night together. Man’s world and men’s needs…. Yes?
Ironically, some of that stuff is stuff that: They got right. And that modern people are getting wrong. Not most of it. Most of their crap was crap. They were so messed up. But there are some things I think they got right.
"They didn't need a label". We shouldn't either. They didn't need public ceremony with insecure public declarations of "this is MINE. Go get your own". We shouldn't either.
They didn't need the woman to trade-away part of her NAME. It's a way to sneak in a psychological manipulation where we shift (part of) her locus of identity into an externalized narrative of personal identity. It's designed to create a subtle yet powerful form of identity-dependence. It can make them both more invested and less likely to leave. So then we could ague maybe-sometimes that's a good thing? Either way, (imho) it also amounts to being linguistically cattle-brand'ed with a male owner's name. Although, tbf, we could make the same point about children being given that branding. I do wonder if maybe that contributes to the sense of ownership most parents have about their biological and adopted children? I am less troubled by the idea of a family name, to the extent that familiar identity does have some emotional and social benefit. But the larger issues surrounding name-branding people ... is a lot more messy than what most people seem to realize.
They didn't need an woman to take a public oral VOW to degrade herself in submission, and then to lock her in with a formal contract of "honor and obey" and "for better or for worse" (coded language for "even if either of you turns out to be an entitled abuser; hell-bent on ruining the other person's health and life"). Granted, that was implied and expected. But at least they didn't expect anyone to publicly degrade themselves by saying it out loud.
5:51 That bit about Baal is interesting, and, to me, very funny. The christians, particularly the modern american kinds of christians, keep going on about Jesus being “lord”. So in effect they’re saying that their Jesus is this old kaananite god of whom JHWH was constantly so infuriatingly jealous that he killed and slaughtered poeple all over the place? Oh, the irony! 😂
@@JenniferBirdPhD There was nothing solid or scholarly about the mumbling session. Your dishonesty and misinterpretation of the Bible was pretty rude. Further, putting your ides in public automatically opens them up to public criticism.
@@JenniferBirdPhD Post modern deconstructionist garbage is all feminists can produce. You don't think your take on biblical marriage is rude to Christians? Hypocrite is another standard feminist trait.
Thanks!
Hi Dr. Bird. I recently subscribed. I am also following your podcast "Wild Olive" You made some interesting points about marriage and the biblical terminologies used. Definitely food for thought. Btw I love your accent 😊 Love from Jamaica 🇯🇲
What timing! I just got to this video while in the middle of reading Marriage and Sexual Relations in the World of the Hebrew Bible by Ken Stone, which also addresses the use of baal for lordship over women. This is a whole new aspect of the biblical nature of marriage for me. I can't wait until Amazon fulfills my Kindle version of your book on January 31st to learn more!
I believe I referenced some of Ken’s scholarship in that chapter.
I also think we might take seriously the need to reject any notions of "returning" to these types of person to person relationships. Some people within our cultures today seem to want to own others like the "good ole days" either within terms of intimacy and / or economically through a given person's labor. I like the work of Nancy Fraser in deeply addressing women's unpaid labor as a major externality without which, in part, capitalism can not be said to be at all beneficial let alone even possible. I am specifically referring to her book, Cannibal Capitalism.
Thank you for the book rec. Gayle Rubin’s “The traffic in woman: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of sex,” is always rumbling around in the back of mind.
I love the dignity and depth you bring to the subject ❤❤❤❤
Thank you for all your work!
Recently I have wondered if the term virgin applied until a birth or pregnancy.
@_Niddy_ it’s definitely the only absolute way to know if a woman has had sex other than witnessing the act
@@kariannecrysler640 but you say that as if they cared about accuracy and whatnot. 😂😉 If we assume that men are going to get some action once they have claimed a woman, then there is no reason to assume that status after the first night together. Man’s world and men’s needs…. Yes?
@@JenniferBirdPhD 🤣 in those texts 💯
Ironically, some of that stuff is stuff that:
They got right. And that modern people are getting wrong.
Not most of it.
Most of their crap was crap.
They were so messed up.
But there are some things I think they got right.
"They didn't need a label".
We shouldn't either.
They didn't need public ceremony with insecure public declarations of "this is MINE. Go get your own".
We shouldn't either.
They didn't need the woman to trade-away part of her NAME.
It's a way to sneak in a psychological manipulation where we shift (part of) her locus of identity
into an externalized narrative of personal identity.
It's designed to create a subtle yet powerful form of identity-dependence.
It can make them both more invested and less likely to leave. So then we could ague maybe-sometimes that's a good thing?
Either way, (imho) it also amounts to being linguistically cattle-brand'ed with a male owner's name.
Although, tbf, we could make the same point about children being given that branding.
I do wonder if maybe that contributes to the sense of ownership most parents have about their biological and adopted children?
I am less troubled by the idea of a family name, to the extent that familiar identity does have some emotional and social benefit.
But the larger issues surrounding name-branding people ... is a lot more messy than what most people seem to realize.
They didn't need an woman to take a public oral VOW to degrade herself in submission, and then to lock her in with a formal contract of "honor and obey" and "for better or for worse" (coded language for "even if either of you turns out to be an entitled abuser; hell-bent on ruining the other person's health and life").
Granted, that was implied and expected. But at least they didn't expect anyone to publicly degrade themselves by saying it out loud.
They didn't feel like they were "making it real" by having a government VALIDATE their union as real.
We shouldn't either.
5:51 That bit about Baal is interesting, and, to me, very funny. The christians, particularly the modern american kinds of christians, keep going on about Jesus being “lord”. So in effect they’re saying that their Jesus is this old kaananite god of whom JHWH was constantly so infuriatingly jealous that he killed and slaughtered poeple all over the place? Oh, the irony! 😂
Exactly what I was expecting from a silly feminist with an axe to grind.
No axe grinding, just solid scholarship. If you don’t like what I do, just keep moving; no need to be rude.
@@JenniferBirdPhD There was nothing solid or scholarly about the mumbling session. Your dishonesty and misinterpretation of the Bible was pretty rude. Further, putting your ides in public automatically opens them up to public criticism.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 please stop being rude. Keep moving. No one here is interested in your underinformed ideas.
@@JenniferBirdPhD Post modern deconstructionist garbage is all feminists can produce. You don't think your take on biblical marriage is rude to Christians? Hypocrite is another standard feminist trait.