rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_fbe89e30-bf65-5213-b643-1c877bed9cd2">25. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 8.
26. Ibid., 91.
27. Ibid., blurb.
28. Oddie, What Will Happen to God?
29. Cappon, Adams-Jefferson Letters, 323.
30. Lewis, “Priestesses in the Church?”
31. Farrer, Glass of Vision, 37–38, 42–43, 44.
32. Bartsch and Fuller, Kerygma and Myth, 222–23.
33. Sacred Congregation, Inter Insigniores, para. 2.
34. Baker, Consecrated Women, 14.
35. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 77
36. John and Charles Wesley (1758), adapted from John Cennick (1752), revised by Martin Madan (1760).
37. Cornwall, “Intersex & Ontology: A Response,” 15.
38. Norris, “Ordination of Women and the ‘Maleness,’” 71–85.
39. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall, 3,1:SCh 10,96; cf. Ad Magn, 6,1:SCh 10,82–84.
40. See Schoborn, God’s Human Face, 133.
41. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,22,4c.
42. Moore, Take a Bishop Like Me, 37.
43. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 62–63.
44. Jardine, Still Harping on Daughters, 1–2.
45. Sacred Congregation, Inter Insigniores, para. 2.
46. Hampson, Theology and Feminism, 88.
47. Slee, “Parables and Women’s Experience,” 25–31.
48. Attributed to Diderot by Jean-François de La Harpe in Cours de Littérature Ancienne et Moderne, 1840. A similar saying appears in Diderot’s posthumous Poesies Diverses, 1875.
49. Clack, Misogyny in the Western.
50. Pagden, Enlightenment: Why it still Matters, 26.
51. Shouyi and Yang, Outline History of China, 38.
52. Goldberg, Inevitability of Patriarchy.
53. Quoted on the dust jacket of the book in question, and by Goldberg himself in an article, “Feminism Against Science,” in the Journal of AIMHS.
54. Baron-Cohen, Essential Difference: Men, Women.
55. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
56. Publisher’s blurb for Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
57. Lewis, Screwtape Letters, 97.
58. Norman, Church and Society in England, 262.
59. Flaubert, Sentimental Education, 303.
60. Morris, J., Against Nature and God.
2: What did Jesus Really Think about Women?
In Gospel research certainty is a very scarce commodity floating adrift in an ocean of probabilities.
—Geza Vermes
Jesus was neither a misogynist nor a feminist; his interests simply lay elsewhere.
—Judith Ochshorn
What did Jesus really think about women? The very question seems to invite anachronism. It seems to assume that Jesus thought about women in an analytical, politicized way. That, of course, is little short of absurd. Earlier ages and other cultures certainly debated the relations between women and men, and reached differing and conflicting conclusions. English readers will remember the extended debate on “sovereignty in marriage” in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, and the Wife of Bath’s combative contribution. But something new and determinative happened in the late seventeenth–early eighteenth century which changed the debate forever. The first stage of feminist consciousness, writes Gerda Lerner, is “the awareness of a wrong.”61 Judith Lorber takes the matter further: “the long term goal of feminism must be no less than the eradication of gender as an organizing principle of post-industrial society.”62 This awareness of wrong, and the political analysis which follows from it, has its origins in the Enlightenment project. Writing in 1700, with an acute awareness of the constitutional implications of the Revolution of 1688, the Newcastle bluestocking Mary Astell was probably the first to argue that if absolute rule is illegitimate in the state, it ought also to be so in the family. She is wittily reversing the arguments of Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, the textbook of Stuart absolutism.
Again, if absolute Sovereignty be not necessary in a State how comes it to be so in a Family? Or if so in a Family why not in a State, since no Reason can be alleged for the one that will not hold more strongly for the other? If Authority of the Husband, so far as it extends, is sacred and inalienable, why not that of the Prince? The Domestic Sovereign is without Dispute elected; and the Stipulations and Contract are mutual; is it not then partial in Men to the last Degree to contend for and practice that Arbitrary Dominion in their Families which they abhor and exclaim against in the State?63
Mary