-.jpg)
Though I found the random, self-conscious, and haphazard she admits many of her efforts have a slapdash feel nature of the experiment irksome, I must admit that this approach dovetails nicely with her ultimate conclusion: We are all selective. When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word [like womanhood].
The Bible does not present us with a single model for womanhood and the notion that it contains a sort of one-size-fits-all formula for how to be a woman of faith is a myth. Sprinkled sparingly throughout the book are glimpses of the wit which must be what makes Held Evans such a popular blogger my favorite: Held Evans does, however, accomplish one truly impressive feat. Amusing but not funny. Thought-provoking but not profound. Oct 25, Kristina rated it really liked it. I wish I could give it 3.
For a good explanation of why I have trouble with her background assumptions, see Kathy Keller's review of the book see blogosphere for that one. However, the book itself is I wish I could give it 3. However, the book itself is an amusing read, most of the way through. In a few places it bogs down; in a few places the tone is a bit too cutesy for me.
Rite of passage
So for accuracy of doctrine, etc. Evans does endeavor in most places not to personally attack those she disagrees with and even aims for a sympathetic tone toward complementarians, though she often doesn't manage not to be belittling. I appreciated that aspect of her writing. Oct 24, Caitlin rated it really liked it Shelves: There are a lot of people who will love this book. There are a lot of people who will hate this book.
See a Problem?
And there are a lot of people who will never know which crowd they belong in because they are afraid to pick up this book. The premise is simple: Rachel goes on a year-long quest to find out what true "Biblical Womanhood" really is. You know, to separate the fact from the fiction, and the rumors from the what the Bible really says. During her year, Rachel took the Bible completely literally. She g There are a lot of people who will love this book.
She got weighed down in the details, trying to live according to the Torah and the commandments and descriptions found within it. She wore head coverings, she tried to become like the Proverbs 31 woman, and she even tackled the "modesty" debate. Being a woman isn't for the faint of heart. That's one thing that I really loved about this book. As Rachel discovered, one of the highest compliments in the Bible was being called a "Woman of valor" by your husband. Which is at the heart of Proverbs She began to celebrate valor in the lives of the woman around her and her eyes were opened to what "Biblical Womanhood" looked like around her.
It takes valor to raise a family. It takes valor to stand up against injustice. It takes valor to speak up and question when the status quo simply does not make sense. Women around the world are living in valor and are unrecognized. There were times when I wanted to chuck the book across the room. Not because I was furious with Rachel. She isn't writing the book as an expert but rather offering a glimpse into her own experience. Don't take her words as gospel-truth because they aren't and she'd probably never want you to give her words that amount of weight.
I was furious when I read passages taken from other texts that I personally disagreed with - which will probably lead to me studying up on them later for myself to see what they really say. One of the passages that resounded the most with me was when Rachel said this: When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word like manhood, womanhood, politics, economics, marriage, and even equality , we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don't fit our tastes.
In an attempt to simplify, we try to force the Bible's cacophony of voices into a singles ton, to turn a complicated and at times troubling holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.
It makes me ready to dig into my Bible and find out for myself. Which is one of the best things a book can do for me. View all 8 comments. Jan 02, K rated it really liked it. I can see why this offends conservative Christian sensibilities. But it is hardly extreme. She sets out to point out that conservative Christians cherry pick verses and interpretations as much as they accuse those of us who have more moderate viewpoints.
And she succeeds admirably, all the while, also learning to understand various standards of womanhood with less judgment. Her chapter on parenting was the most refreshing for me. Most women without children don't have any reason to notice, let al I can see why this offends conservative Christian sensibilities. Most women without children don't have any reason to notice, let alone, engage in the "mommy wars.
- Moving On Into Morning!
- Customers who bought this item also bought.
- Navigation menu.
- !
It reminded me that these "wars" are made up and don't determine our fitness as a mother or a woman. This chapter alone made the book worth reading. As a moderate in so much of my life, including parenthood, I am often abused by women on all sides who take my lack of enthusiasm toward their "cause" as a sign of disapproval and therefore I am worthy of harsh judgment. The other chapter that touched me was on social justice.
Being a libertarian, social justice is something important to me. Creating fair playing grounds for people to grow and achieve is close to my heart. But so are free markets, and this chapter made me squirm a bit with the abuse by big corporations towards the poor. There is no excuse for slavery, but yet our consumerist lifestyle breeds the need for more for less. We, the consumer, are the problem. And that is a hard pill to swallow but one that needs to be. I have been purchasing fair trade coffee for about two years now but I can't ignore that I am part of the problem.
She also gives a good road map for starting. You don't need to switch your lifestyle all at once, but rather pick a few things at a time. The chapter on submission was thoughtful but using Debi Pearl's book, "Created to Be His Helpmeet," is a little unfair. This book is wildly out there even for many conservatives.
Ultimately, she concludes that most people looking for a Biblical standard of womanhood are trying to shortcut faith by creating rules as a substitute. Her use of scripture and various commentaries to support her arguments gives her message strength, which seems to be why so many Christian reviews have to attack her for how she argues and not her argument in and of itself.
I found the book both humorous and endearing. Nov 02, Jenn LeBow rated it really liked it. Yes, it's a controversial book. People seem to have lined up to love it or hate it based simply on their opinions of Rachel. Here's the bottom line: Rachel, like many or something people in the U. That she does this in relation to the Bible and her view of Christianity seems to be objectionable to her critic Yes, it's a controversial book. That she does this in relation to the Bible and her view of Christianity seems to be objectionable to her critics.
Since I have, more than once, laughed in church when my cheesy language alert went off, that doesn't bother me.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Wikipedia
I did wonder how she would approach Old Testament passages in light of her faith in Christ, but she won me over with her serious friendships formed over the course of the year with people such as an Orthodox Jewish woman and with her willingness to undergo change, even if it didn't fit with her original game plan. I don't agree with everything Rachel writes, but I appreciate her honesty, humor, and her love for the Bible. Those three characteristics shone through the controversy and made this a truly enojyable reading experience.
This is the kind of work that gets produced when exegesis and hermeneutics are thrown out and others' opinions are thrown in. I didn't know we were still living as if the cross had not yet happened in salvation history. A very good treatment of this work done better than I can do, by Kathy Keller, found at: Two fantastic reviews from Trillia Newbell at: I have a close female friend who was strongly brainwashed into believing in Christian mythology.
At some level she knows it is all just old myths and made up by sexist men but when the brainwashing goes on during childhood, there are fears that worm their way in. This is why I think proselytizing to children ought to be a crime punishable by prison time for child abuse. No one should mess with a child's mind in such a manner. I love this friend like a sister and offer her lovely Atheist books t I have a close female friend who was strongly brainwashed into believing in Christian mythology.
I love this friend like a sister and offer her lovely Atheist books to help her in her struggle but unfortunately she is still given crap like this from alarmed friends and family who fear she will stop drinking the kool-aid. Even she flinched at reading this and was so aghast, she asked me to read it and discuss it with her, offering my own opinions. Since I love her, I did so. What do I think of this book? Well, Goodreads won't let me use the language this deserves so I will try to be more delicate.
This book isn't fit to be read by anyone. Rachel Evans is an idiot who wasted a whole year of her life becoming her husband's dog and denigrating herself to the level of a muddy door mat many dirty feet have stamped upon. She covered her head while praying to the Big Penis in the Sky who is her boss. Funny how men can convince gullible women that a penis was what gave birth to all life.
She camped outside during her period because it made her unclean. Of course biblical mythology sees women as dirty, nasty creatures only fit to be obedient dogs, so why not. This essentially means she buys into the idea that women are inferior and unclean and need to be obedient dogs. She panted like a dog at her husband, called him "Master" the way any good slave would, and stood around in public holding signs praising her husband by name. She forced herself to sit on the roof to punish herself for imperfections according to the bible, that is.
Women, rise up and free yourselves. The bible was written by sexist men. There is no god. There was no Jesus. It's all fairy tales and the joke is on you. Quit bowing to big penises in the sky and little ones in your bedroom. You are not a dog nor a doormat. Your period is not unclean. You deserve no penance for thinking. Get that damned rag off of your head and be an adult woman, calling no one master.
Slave days are past. I recommend this only for fools and idiots who have no self-respect for themselves and no respect for women in general. View all 21 comments. This book is on my "to read" list, but don't let that fool you. I don't want to read this book. I just wanted a place to put several comments: Kathy Keller to RHE: It was the court of Rachel Held Evans.
She was the prosecution, judge, and jury. The verdict was out.
Frequently bought together
And with authority and confidence, she would have the final word on womanhood. In this book Evans is trying to build a bridge, but I wonder if it is not rather a comfortable bridge for shaky evangelicals to find their way into theological liberalism. This book is not ultimately about manhood and womanhood, headship and submission, or the complementarian and egalitarian debate. At its root this book questions the validity of the Bible. And denying the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture is a denial that will ultimately erode the gospel of our Savior.
This is where I clear my throat tentatively, not sure I could have heard this right. This is a caliber of exegesis that thinks that Jesus went to Capernaum might mean that Capernaum went to Jesus. Who can be sure? Scholars differ on this controversial point. Apr 20, TinaB rated it it was ok Shelves: I did love her humor, her very relate to you struggles with the Bible and some of the thought provoking ways she made me see culture and how rigid religion can place women in boxes.
While I didn't love how she treated branches of the religion, I did like her book personality. For the most part I found her views interesting and even at times refreshing when it came to b 2. For the most part I found her views interesting and even at times refreshing when it came to being a modern day woman living in a world where Christianity is very unpopular. By this sentiment I mean Evans seems honest, and in touch with how women are viewed in the Christian culture and the roles we are forced or limited to play.
Evans seems to speak whatever she feels about whatever topic she wants and isn't afraid to piss off fundamentalists What stumped me though was how a progressive Christian woman who devalues conservative Christian women and makes most of what she researches in Biblical living humorous, can be taken seriously. Speaking up against years of Christian tradition and laying a new outlook for modern people takes courage, or an over-bloated ego the backlash can be overwhelming, you're going to have all those hater conservatives riled up against you Is she someone who understands culture and women?
Would I recommend this book to everyone? I love the way Evans presents herself, she is a 'funny' lady, and yeah her stuff is overboard with the PC, and yeah she misquotes a few Calvinist preachers in her book and blog posts to garner reactions, and yeah she devalues scripture and even in some spots mocks it, but at least I can hand it to her that she still manages to come across in a way that is authentic.
Mar 18, Sharon rated it did not like it. Christian women's ethics are a hot topic no matter what your background is. And this book was written by a Christian claiming to be a fresh thinker bringing some much-needed Endust and a rag to some dusty topics. But frankly, neither is RHE. Rachel Held-Evans' "godly" woman is as lame as they come. She ignores the entire catalog of crazy God-fearing women and only defines herself by some random verses from Christian women's ethics are a hot topic no matter what your background is.
She ignores the entire catalog of crazy God-fearing women and only defines herself by some random verses from the purity laws and Proverbs And concludes the matter by saying that all of those things were probably irrelevant and leaves it at that. Her femininity remains untouched by Christ or His Church, and in the process, becomes distinctly neuter. Her experiment is based on the notion that femininity in the Bible is contained in laws and specifications, not in the heroines who grace our story. And her approach to the Bible is wooden: She's not even attempting scholarship here.
Don't waste your time with this book. If you want to engage with real feminism, read Our Bodies, Ourselves. If you want to engage with real femininity, read Ruth, or Esther, or Elizabeth Elliot. When I saw this book in a catalog at work, I was more tickled at the idea. I've discovered over the last few years that I am fascinated by religion and religious culture - not just of my own faith, but of many others.
I love learning how others interpret scripture, and how traditions are made and kept. I ordered this book for my library, and checked it out as soon as I saw it on the New Releases shelf. Very quickly it is evident that this book and project were inspired by A. Jacobs' "Year of Living Biblically" -- another book I was fascinated by.
This one, naturally, is the woman's perspective, and while there are overlaps in some ways, I gained a lot from this book simply because I am a woman, and it is a story for ME. Alcott wrote the books over several months at the request of her publisher. Little Women was an immediate commercial and critical success with readers demanding to know more about the characters.
Alcott quickly completed a second volume entitled Good Wives in the United Kingdom, although this name originated from the publisher and not from Alcott. It was also successful. The two volumes were issued in as a single novel entitled Little Women. Alcott wrote two sequels to her popular work, both of which also featured the March sisters: Little Men and Jo's Boys Although Little Women was a novel for girls, it differed notably from the current writings for children, especially girls.
The novel addressed three major themes: Little Women "has been read as a romance or as a quest, or both. It has been read as a family drama that validates virtue over wealth", but also "as a means of escaping that life by women who knew its gender constraints only too well". Elbert argued that within Little Women can be found the first vision of the " All-American girl " and that her multiple aspects are embodied in the differing March sisters.
The book has been adapted for cinema ; twice as silent film and four times with sound in , , and Six television series were made, including four by the BBC —, , , and Two anime series were made in Japan during the s. A musical version opened on Broadway in An American opera version in has been performed internationally and filmed for broadcast on US television in Greta Gerwig is directing a new rendition of the novel, set to be released In , Thomas Niles, the publisher of Louisa May Alcott, recommended that she write a book about girls that would have widespread appeal.
Niles pressed her to write the girls' book first, and he was aided by her father Amos Bronson Alcott , who also urged her to do so. In May , Alcott wrote in her journal: I said I'd try. By June, Alcott had sent the first dozen chapters to Niles, and both agreed these were dull. But Niles' niece Lillie Almy read them and said she enjoyed them. Alcott wrote, "they are the best critics, so I should definitely be satisfied. According to literary critic Sarah Elbert, when using the term "little women", Alcott was drawing on its Dickensian meaning; it represented the period in a young woman's life where childhood and elder childhood were "overlapping" with young womanhood.
Each of the March sister heroines had a harrowing experience that alerted her and the reader that "childhood innocence" was of the past, and that "the inescapable woman problem" was all that remained. Four teenaged sisters and their mother, Marmee, live in a new neighborhood loosely based on Concord in Massachusetts in genteel poverty. Having lost all his money, their father is acting as a pastor , miles from home, involved in the American Civil War. The women face their first Christmas without him.
Meg and Jo March, the elder two, have to work in order to support the family: Meg teaches a nearby family of four children; Jo assists her aged great-aunt March, a wealthy widow living in a mansion , Plumfield. Beth, too timid for school is content to stay at home and help with housework; Amy is still at school. Meg is beautiful and traditional, Jo is a tomboy who writes; Beth is a peacemaker and a pianist; Amy is an artist who longs for elegance and fine society. Jo is impulsive and quick to anger. One of her challenges is trying to control her anger, a challenge that her mother experiences.
She advises Jo to speak with forethought before leaving to travel to Washington , where her husband has pneumonia. Their neighbour, Mr Laurence, who is charmed by Beth, gives her a piano. Beth contracts scarlet fever after spending time with a poor family where three children die. Jo tends Beth in her illness. Beth recovers, but never fully. As a precaution, Amy is sent to live with Aunt March, replacing Jo, while Beth was ill and still infectious.
Jo has success earning money with her writing. Meg spends two weeks with friends, where there are parties for the girls to dance with boys and improve social skills. Theodore 'Laurie' Laurence, Mr. Laurence's grandson, is invited to one of the dances, as her friends incorrectly think Meg is in love with him. Meg is more interested in John Brooke, Laurie's young tutor. Brooke goes to Washington to help Mr. While with the March parents, Brooke confesses his love for Meg. They are pleased but consider Meg too young to be married.
Brooke agrees to wait but enlists and serves a year or so in the war. After he is wounded, he returns to find work so he can buy a house ready for when he marries Meg. Laurie goes off to college, having become smitten by Jo. On Christmas Day, a year after the book's opening, the girls' father returns from the war. Three years later, Meg and John marry and learn how to live together. When they have twins, Meg is a devoted mother but John begins to feel left out.
Laurie graduates from college, having put in effort to do well in his last year with Jo's prompting. He realises that he has fallen in love with Jo. Sensing his feelings, Jo confides in Marmee, telling her that she loves Laurie but as she would love a brother and that she could not love him romantically. Laurie proposes marriage to her and she turns him down. Jo decides she needs a break, and spends six months with a friend of her mother in New York City, serving as governess for her two children.
The family runs a boarding house. She takes German lessons with Professor Bhaer, who lives in the house. He has come to America from Berlin to care for the orphaned sons of his sister. For extra money, Jo writes stories without a moral, which disappoints Bhaer. Amy goes on a European tour with her aunt. Laurie and his grandfather also go to Europe. Beth's health has seriously deteriorated. Jo devotes her time to the care of her dying sister. Laurie encounters Amy in Europe. With the news of Beth's death, they meet for consolation and their romance grows.
Amy's aunt will not allow Amy to return with just Laurie and his grandfather, so they marry before returning home from Europe. Professor Bhaer arrives at the Marches' and stays for two weeks. On his last day, he proposes to Jo. Aunt March dies, leaving Plumfield to Jo. She and Bhaer turn the house into a school for boys. They have two sons of their own, and Amy and Laurie have a daughter. At apple-picking time, Marmee celebrates her 60th birthday at Plumfield, with her husband, her three surviving daughters, their husbands, and her six grandchildren.
Meg, the eldest sister, is 16 when the story starts. She is referred to as a beauty, and manages the household when her mother is absent. According to Alcott's description of the character, she is brown-haired and blue-eyed, and has particularly beautiful hands. Meg fulfills expectations for women of the time; from the start, she is already a nearly perfect "little woman" in the eyes of the world.
Meg is based in the domestic household; she does not have significant employment or activities outside it. Meg is employed as a governess for the Kings, a wealthy local family. The second part of the hymns wish the baby a long life. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in the last chapter detailing lessons for Grihastha stage of life for a student, describes this rite of passage, in verses 6. When a child is born, he prepares the fire, places the child on his lap, and having poured Prishadajya of Dahi yoghurt and Ghrita clarified butter , into a metal jug, he sacrifices the mix into the fire, saying: May fortune never fail in its race, with offspring and cattle, Svah!
I offer to thee [the baby] in my mind the vital breaths which are in me, Svah! Whatever in my work I have done too much, or whatever I have done too little, may the wise Agni make it right, make it proper, Svah! The Upanishad includes prayer to deity Saraswati during this rite of passage, the goddess of knowledge and wisdom in Hindu tradition. It also includes the threefold repetition of "Speech Speech" with the assertion to the baby, "You are the Vedas!
While the earliest Dharmasutras list Jatakarma and Namakarama as two different sanskara, they evolve into one in many Gryhasutra texts. By Pantanjali's time, these two rites of passage had merged into one, and completed within the first two weeks of the baby's birth, usually about the tenth day.
The naming ritual solemnizes the child as an individual, marking the process by which a child is accepted and socialized by people around him or her. The Satapatha Brahmana verse 6. The rite of passage also includes a gathering of friends and relatives of the new parents, where gifts are presented, and a feast follows.
The ancient Sanskrit texts provide numerous and divergent guidelines to the parents for choosing names. On this ritual occasion the newborn is taken out and shown the sun at sunrise or sunset, or the moon, or both. Alternatively, some families take the baby to a temple for the first time. The baby's outing is accompanied by both the mother and the father, siblings if any, as well some near family members such as grandparents and friends.
The significance of Niskramana and showing the baby heavenly bodies is derived from their significance of Sun, Moon and nature in the Vedic literature. The ritual is usually celebrated with cooked rice, in a paste of honey, ghee and curd. The father sits with them and participates in the rite of passage. The rite of passage, in some texts, include charity and feeding of the poor, and ceremonial prayers by both parents.
The significance of this rite of passage is the baby's cyclical step to hygiene and cleanliness. It is typically done about the first birthday, but some texts recommend that it be completed before the third or the seventh year. The piercing is usually done with a clean gold thread, or silver needle. For a baby boy, the right earlobe is pierced first. In case of girls, the left nostril may also be pierced during this ritual.
It is also known as Akshararambha , Aksharaabhyaasa , or Aksharasvikara. It is a ritual that celebrates as a milestone, the child's formal attempt to learn means of knowledge. The oldest texts that describe rites of passage, such as the Dharmasutras, make no mention of Vidyarambha and go direct to Upanayana ritual at the 8th year. The ceremony is observed on the same day for all children in their 5th year, on the day of Vijayadasami which is on the tenth of the Hindu month Ashvin September—October. Upanayana was an elaborate ceremony, that included rituals involving the family, the child and the teacher.
Rajbali Pandey compares the Upanayana rite of passage to Baptism in Christianity where the person is born again unto spiritual knowledge, in addition to it being the ancient Indian rite of passage for the start of formal education of writing, numbers, reading, Vedangas , arts and other skills. Instead of sacred thread, girls would wear their robe now called sari or saree in the manner of the sacred thread, that is over her left shoulder during this rite of passage. The education of a student was not limited to ritual and philosophical speculations found in the Vedas and the Upanishads.
They extended to many arts and crafts, which had their own but similar rites of passages. The rites of passage during apprentice education varied in the respective guilds. Praishartha or Vedarambha is the rite of passage that marked the start of learning the Vedas and Upanishads in Gurukulam or Pathashala school. It was a fire ritual yajna , where the teacher and the student sat together, with the teacher reciting initiation hymns and the student following. This ritual is missing in older texts, and Pandey suggests that the later tradition recognized the difference between getting accepted in a school, and the actual start of Veda studies when the student is ready to learn those texts.
These were on-going rituals of living at living, and not considered as a distinct rite of passage. The emphasis of the stage where the student started Veda study was both the memorization and know the meaning of each hymn, verse or mantra. Some texts describes two rituals each academic period school year , one marking the start of Vedic studies each year, called Upakarma or Upakarana.
The other ceremony was held at the end of each academic period, called Utasarjanam or Utsarga or Samapana , and marked the suspension of the Veda studies for a certain period of the year. This was typically observed about age sixteen, and the emerging beard and moustache were shaved. The ceremony included gift giving such as to the barber and the teacher at his school. Ritusuddhi , also called as Ritu Kala Samskara , is the corresponding coming of age ceremony for girls, after menarche or first menstruation. This milestone in a girl's life is observed by her family and friends, with gifts and her wearing a sari for the ritual.