Monday, November 24, 2014

Women, Crumb, and Genesis (final paper draft 1)

The Book of Genesis is very different from the many other books of the Bible. It shows an often merciless God who asks unspeakable things of his followers (God’s request of Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac is one example), and the characters that make up the many stories in Genesis do not always seem to have the best morals. The men often show disregard for the lives of the women around them, and they frequently show jealously followed by acts of violence and rage. Yet, despite having these disagreeable qualities, the male purpose in Genesis is very clear; they are called upon by God to fulfill his requests and to act as prophets. Noah builds the ark, Isaac and Abraham build nations by fathering many children and in the end, it is the men who speak to God directly. Likewise, the women in Genesis have similar unsavory qualities as the male figures; they are also sneaky, manipulative, and they often seem subservient and submissive. However, unlike the men, the purpose of women in the Bible is less obvious. I believe R. Crumb draws the women of the Bible as being strong, powerful, figures to argue that the role of women in Genesis as being mothers and wives is a very important one. Some would say the Bible argues that a woman’s place is in the home, and many feminists today believe this to be offensive towards females. However, Crumb argues, and as a female I also argue, that by occupying motherly roles, women of the Bible are made to be just as important (if not more important) than their male counterparts. By arguing this point, it is possible to view women of the Bible in a more positive light, and thusly to view the role of stay at home mothers in modern society as empowering rather than detrimental to the progress of female equality.
            Women in Crumb’s illustrated version of the Book of Genesis are all portrayed very similarly. In the illustrations, Crumb draws woman’s faces in an almost manly way. In fact, it can often be hard to discern between a male face and a female face. This could be Crumb’s way of illustrating the equality he sees between men and women in Genesis. Both men and women occupy important roles in God’s plan, and by making both sexes look similar, Crumb is addressing these equally important roles. However, throughout the Book of Genesis, Crumb sexualizes women in his drawings. When the women are not wearing clothes, their bodies are drawn as being full figured with large breasts. When the women are clothed, he often includes their cleavage or nipples showing through their dresses. One interpretation of this style of artwork could be the idea that he is simply drawing crude images to sexualize women in the stories; Crumb has said that he prefers more full-bodied women so perhaps he is drawing from his preferences. In many of his other pieces, women are drawn in compromising positions, which not only sexualize women but reduce them to nothing but figures to look at. For example, in his drawing “Imaginary woman against the wall”, he portrays just that. A woman is standing, legs spread apart, bent forward exposing a large backside, with her face smashed against the wall. Her large posterior is obviously the focus of the page, picture, but what is more disturbing is that her face is hardly visible at all. The woman in the picture “is her butt”; it defines her and this idea is about as demoralizing as it can get. This theme of sexualizing women seems to be prevalent throughout much of Crumb’s work; if the Book of Genesis has very large and shapely women as well, it seems counterproductive to the possible idea that he believes men and women share equal roles. However there are differences between the women in the Book of Genesis and Crumb’s other work. One of the main differences is that while the women still possess large breasts and large butts, they are not featured in as many compromising positions. Their assets do not become the focus of the image, but rather part of the image. It is also possible that Crumb draws the women as he does to emphasize their fertility. Large breasts and wide hips are both signs of fertility and maternity, and both qualities are exhibited in the types of women Crumb draws. If the importance of women of the Bible is the fact that they fulfill God’s plan through bearing children, it makes sense to draw them with figures that look as though they were built to do so. By emphasizing these specific motherly and womanly qualities, Crumb is highlighting the fact that in Genesis, being a mother is a very significant role.
            An example of this can be seen in Chapter 19 during the story of Lot and his daughters. After God destroys their city, Lot and his two daughters escape with the belief that they are the only three people left on the Earth. The older daughter says “our father is old, and there is no man on Earth to come to bed with us like the way of all the world! Come, let’s give our father wine to drink, and let’s lie with him so that we may keep alive seed from our father!” (Crumb Chapter 19). This in itself is a twisted story; the idea that two daughters sleep with their father in order to bear his children is very scandalous. Yet despite the controversial nature of this story, I argue, and I believe Crumb argues, that it actually illustrates the importance of women in the Bible. These women suddenly find themselves saddled with the responsibility of keeping the human race alive, and because of this huge responsibility, they choose to sleep with their father. However, in doing so they believe they are saving an entire race. This shows that through reproduction and motherhood, women serve God and all humanity. Crumb illustrates this in the last picture of the chapter. In this image, the two daughters are teaching their sons how to hunt; the sons then grow up to become leaders of the Moabites and the Ammonites. Not only did the two sisters give birth to two sons in order to save the human race, they gave birth to leaders of two nations. The picture drawn by Crumb of the hunting lesson implies that the two sisters are responsible for not only birthing the future kings, but also for teaching them how to be successful by engaging in the responsibilities of motherhood. Crumb draws Lot sitting in the background and almost blending in to the cliff behind him, with an empty plate of food in front of him. This depiction of Lot suggests a rather lazy demeanor, and that the role of raising the children and providing for the family falls mainly on the two women. This is interesting because many people consider caring for children and providing food for the family (as the women do by hunting) as some of the typical roles taken on in motherhood. Crumbs portrayal of the sisters as having strong bodies perhaps indicates that he believes strong women are responsible for the strength of men in the Bible, and that being a mother is one of the ultimate acts of strength.
            Of course, there can always be a counterargument to this view of Lot’s daughters. While their actions take tremendous strength, it could also be said that Lot’s daughters are forced to rely on a male figure in order to achieve their goals. Many may see their actions as dependent rather than independent. This is a valid argument because it is true; Lot’s daughters could not have children not for their father because it obviously takes a man and a woman to bear a child. In saying that however, the roles in childbearing are equal. Both the male and the female need to contribute on an equal level in order for the child to be conceived, and eventually, the female needs to give up her entire body to have children. This fact puts the male and female back on equal playing fields. Just as the woman (in this case, both of Lot’s daughters) must rely on a male to have children, a man must also rely on a female. Lot’s daughters then take it a step further by raising their children not for themselves, but for humanity.
            Motherhood has been, and will continue to be, a topic of much conflict within in feminist society. In the article “Teaching About Motherhood: Revisioning Family” “feminist philosopher Patrice DiQuinzio (1999) discusse[s] the problem of rationalizing feminism, individualism, and mothering. Individualism considers each individual as a separate unit, which is basic to the argument for equal treatment and equal rights, but motherhood requires acknowledging interconnectedness between individuals who have distinct and competing needs, such as the need of the mother to self-actualize and the need of the infant for her undivided attention. This philosophical analysis led her to conclude that mothering has been, and will continue to be, an intractable problem for feminist theory.” While feminism is often centered around treating women as individuals and enforcing the fact that females can do things for themselves, the female ability to bear children goes against this very statement. The act of having a child means a woman cannot simply work in her own self-interest anymore. She must take care of another person and put that person’s needs before her own. This idea can be a complication in some people’s idea of feminism, but at the same time, it exemplifies feminine strength and ability to take on the needs of others and to provide for a family.
            If the female ability to bear children affects how she sees individualism and how individualism pertains to her, how else does it affect women and feminism? History provides an example when “some feminists promoted protective legislation for working women and children because their health was put at risk by extremely long work hours and exposure to unhealthy working conditions. Other feminists argued against protective legislation because it would limit women’s freedom to work and would provide a rationale for gender-based differentials in pay and opportunities for promotion. Protecting women ultimately would mean excluding women from positions that would be more lucrative and more likely to lead to advancement.” This quote brings up the interesting topic of choice. Some believe women should be protected because of their ability to have children while others believe that protecting a woman simply because she can have kids is unfair. The second view focuses on the importance of woman in the workforce but it diminishes the importance of women as mothers. I believe this is where choice comes in to play. In the Bible, the women who became mothers chose to do so. They wanted to have children and the choice to have kids was what made them strong. However, today many women do not want to have children while other women do. Either way, it is their choice, and it is the ability to choose that empowers women. It seems from the quote above that many views on how women should be treated take away that choice; if all women are protected then some cannot make the choice to work; if all women are exposed to unhealthy conditions, they cannot make the choice to become mothers.
            Interestingly, choice and the treatment of women come into play in the Book of Genesis as well, and through his illustrations, Crumb’s view on the topic becomes apparent. Crumb argues that women should be treated differently, but with respect, based on his portrayal of Dinah. In Genesis, Dinah appears to be raped by Shechem, Son of Hamor the Hivite Prince. After the rape, Dinah’s brothers take revenge on the entire town by killing Shechem and all the men of the city and taking their sister back. In the end of the story Jacob is upset with his sons for their actions but Simon and Levi say “like a whore should our sister be treated?!” (chapter 34). Through his illustrations, readers see Dinah treated by Shechem with the utmost disrespect and in turn, he is killed. The violence Crumb depicts when Sachem is murdered indicates that Crumb feels strongly about the actions of Simon and Levi and essentially validates them. What would have happened if Dinah had been a man? Most likely, her brothers would not care about Shechem’s actions. But Dinah is a female. She has childbearing capabilities and Shechem exploited her (and essentially them though no child is mentioned). Also, the fact that Dinah does not bear a child after this indicates that perhaps the unfair treatment she receives bars her from having children and continuing Shechem’s lineage. This implies that women should be treated differently than men, but they should not be treated unequally.
In addition to Lot’s daughters, the import of the role of motherhood can be seen in chapter 24 of the Book of Genesis, when Abraham asks his servant to find a wife for his son Isaac. He is very specific about how to go about doing this when he says, “…you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite in whose midst I dwell, but to my land and to my birthplace you shall go, and you shall take a wife for my son Isaac” (Genesis 24:3). It is clear that where his wife comes from is very important. If a woman’s origin is important, it must mean that they themselves serve some sort of importance other than to just be a wife. In fact they can be seen as sort of prophets because, “…women in Genesis determine who receives the promise from the Israelite Deity. The designated heir is always male, yet the right mother is critical in that choice. The role of women as wives is significant, but their role as mothers is even more important” (Schneider). It is true that most of the prophets in the Bible are men, but these men would not exist if they had not been born by their mothers. God chooses each biblical female specifically to carry the male child who is to be the next prophet. It is evident that this selection is not simply random because God gives specific instructions to the male characters as to whom they shall take as wives.
            An alternate view of women in the Bible is that they are submissive and serve no other purpose than to oblige their husbands. According to The Bible Now by Richard Elliot Friedman, “some people say that the Bible was enlightened for its time, a crucial step in an evolution (some would say a revolution) of women’s status. Others say that males composed the Bible, that it was the product of patriarchal society, that it was the justification of such patriarchal society, and that it has been one of the best-known contributors to maintaining an inferior status of women” (Friedman). In fact, some feminists even go so far as to say “[no] one who is truly a feminist can find any authentic meaning for herself within the context of these traditions. To do so is sheer masochism and dependency. Feminists must purge themselves of all traces of adherence to these religions and turn to alternative woman's religions.” (Ruether). This quote explains that many feminists believe that women should abandon the traditional views of women in religion (and perhaps even the religions themselves) because they reduce women’s self-worth to close to nothing. The quote claims that no meaning can be drawn from the women in the Bible. I believe that Crumb would disagree with the idea that the portrayal of women in the Bible is a main contributor to the inferior status of women. I say this because by illustrating women as robust characters with womanly figures, he portrays them as being very strong. The, shapely bodies are not drawn to demoralize women, but rather, they are drawn because of the fact that their main purpose is to be mothers. Despite popular feminist belief today, Crumb argues that the ability to be a mother is one of the strongest qualities a woman can have, and that fertility was given to her by God (and in some cases God grants a woman fertility even in old age or after years of not being able to conceive) as a way to carry out His plan. In regards to this position, I find myself tending towards agreeing with Crumb. I believe motherhood, as portrayed in the Book of Genesis, is what makes the female characters strong and influential.  
Take the fertility “contest” between Rachel and Leah as an example. In this case, both women are competing against one another to provide more children for their husband, Jacob. When both women find themselves unable to conceive, they offer their handmaids to Jacob so that they may bear his children in their name. Both women believe that by having children they will be serving God and pleasing Jacob, and that by doing so they will be the stronger wife. This makes sense because the ability to bear children is given to them by God, and to them, the woman with the most children would seem to be more favored in God’s eyes, and thus stronger. This idea of a woman as a sort of child bearing “machine” is one that is adamantly rejected by modern feminist culture. However, I think Crumb addresses this clash between Biblical beliefs and modern views in his illustrations of Rachel and Leah. For example, in Chapter 30, there is a caption that says “and afterward she bore a daughter and she called her name Dinah” (Crumb Chapter 30). Under this caption is an image of Leah and all of her children fighting, screaming, and crying. This picture is followed by an image of Rachel looking calm and peaceful while staring down at her first son Joseph. In Crumbs illustration, God has given Leah seven children but she is pictured fighting with them (yet nowhere in the text does it say Leah and her children did not get along), while Rachel only has one child and seems to be at peace. It is also important to remember the importance of Joseph (and the fact that he was his father’s favorite son) because Joseph is born of Rachel, the sister who bore fewer children. This implies Crumb believes women are meant to bear children, but that God does not necessarily intend for women to be child baring “machines”. The number of children is not what is important, but rather the purpose the children will serve in the future; giving birth to one future king or leader is preferable, according to God and Crumb’s illustrations, than giving birth to seven children who will serve more minor roles in God’s plan.
Another controversial topic in the Bible about women’s roles is the fact that, in Genesis, the man was created first and the woman was created to keep him company. However, could the reason for creating women after men mean something other than the fact that they should be regarded as “helpers”? Friedman says, ‘“More relevant to the question of woman’s significance in the Bible is the fact that woman is created, according to the Hebrew, as an ‘e ¯zer ke ˘ nege ˘ dô. 23 Interpreters have long taken this phrase to mean a suitable helper, or a help appropriate for him… In that case, the meaning of ‘e ¯zer ke ˘ nege ˘ dô in Genesis is “a strength corresponding to him.” That is rather different from a helper”’ (Friedman). In a way, each male character married his specific wife (or wives) because God arranges it to be so. Each biblical pairing is made by God, not necessarily by the man; whom he chooses to be his wife is predetermined by God, as is the wife’s ability or inability to conceive. In the end, I believe this makes the woman even more significant because she acts as a bigger part of God’s plan, as her ability to conceive affects whether or not there will even be future generations of prophets. She should not be considered a helper because she is necessary in the success of the male characters. Without the woman and her ability to conceive, there would be no future for the human race in the Bible.
Another argument against the submissive nature of women in the Bible can be seen in the fact that they often take their future into their own hands. Through rather devious manors, both Rebekah and Tamar make decisions that shape the lives they lead, and ultimately the children they bear. In Tamar’s story, she is originally married to Er, son of Judah, but he dies before the two are able to have children. Because of this, Judah orders his other son, Onan, to have a child with Tamar so that Er’s name will live on. Onan fails to do so and Tamar is sent back to her family to live as a widow. As a young childless widow she still belongs to Er and his family so she cannot remarry despite her husband’s death. Tamar is not “worth” very much to her family, and she realizes her future depends upon whether or not Judah holds up his end of the deal by marrying Tamar to his son Shelah. Unhappy with this fate, she decides to play the part of the village prostitute where she tricks Judah into impregnating her. This is the case of a young woman risking everything so that she may provide a better future for herself. Left with very few prospects, she overcomes the obstacles placed in front of her and transcends what is expected of her. Her use of trickery reflects on her knowledge of her father-in-law, and it also reflects on her intelligence in general. She is an exceptionally smart woman capable of many things, and she demands to receive what she is promised. In this context, it becomes rather difficult to see Tamar as being a submissive wife; she blatantly refuses to accept a fate bestowed upon her by her husband’s family. 

Through the examples of Lot’s daughters, Rebekah, and Rachel and Leah, the role of women in the Bible becomes clearer. According to Crumb’s illustrations, it is apparent that he believes women were created by God so that they may provide future generations of kings. Many modern feminists find issues with this claim. However, I do not believe Crumb intends this work to be sexist in any way, and I do not find the work to be sexist. Like Crumb, I believe the Bible places a great deal of importance on the fact that women can become mothers while men cannot. This feminine quality brings women many opportunities to be powerful and strong through the many stories in the Bible. The women in the Bible are not clear cut characters, but in society today many people see women’s roles as being either black or white. Stay at home mothers have been frowned upon because of the belief that a woman should be in the workforce providing for her family without relying on her husband. However, Crumb’s illustrations show that women can provide for the family and be independent because they are stay at home mothers. I believe Crumb intends to emphasize the importance of the role God has given women in the Bible, and he illustrates female characters the way he does to emphasize strength, and the idea that motherhood should be seen as a position of power rather than a weakness.


  1. I apologize for the length, but (as you can see) one of the main issues I am having is deciding what should be cut from the paper. Please let me know if you have any ideas!

  2. I don't like the counterargument for Lot's daughters as I don't see how Lot is stronger than his daughters in the image you mention. I think you should stick with topics similar to the first few paragraphs and get rid of the feminism bit because you don't use it to relate to the text at all. It's just two paragraphs in the middle of your essay, where your argument should be the strongest, that doesn't really contribute to your argument or not. The women that Crumb draws in Genesis are strong and powerful. Childbirth is very important. Feminism about whether childbirth is feminist or not? Not so good. I see why you incorporate it in order to dismiss another counterargument but I just don't see it working here.I like the second counterargument and you address it and dismiss it as being inaccurate in an appropriate manner. The comment that I have about the paper as a whole is that you spend too much attention on just the aspect of childbirth in the illustrated book of genesis. I think you should take out some of those paragraphs and replace them with paragraphs focused on female sexuality. A good example of this would be Eve facing the tree of Good and Evil and any other sex scenes in the illustrated book of Genesis where the female looks like they are enjoying themselves. Sure it's a little bit awkward to talk about sex in an essay but I think it plays a huge role here. Overall, this is a really good first draft. I don't know what you added to it from your previous revision (you didn't do a project proposal like you were supposed to). I also think you should add to your conclusion why this interpretation matters. What does the reader gain from understanding that women in the Bible are strong, powerful, and equally important in comparison to men?

  3. How would you relate your claim that Crumb is interested in showing the strength of women through motherhood to his endnotes, which address his feminist or quasi-feminist agenda? It would be nice to see you address that question at some point.

    I thought your discussion of how Crumb’s work in Genesis wasn’t quite the same as his more obnoxiously sexualized work was good and nuanced. The paragraph structure could have been a little better, but the approach was strong.

    I agree that the 2nd paragraph on Lot’s daughters is a little awkward - it just doesn’t quite seem like a counterargument anyone else would actually believe. I think the more obvious counterargument is that the whole situation is darkly satirical, and that you & Crumb have a bit of an uphill battle to go through in order to make these daughters positive figures. Which isn’t to say that you’re wrong - I tend to agree that Crumb is doing exactly that, by reversing our expectations.

    “The act of having a child means a woman cannot simply work in her own self-interest anymore. She must take care of another person and put that person’s needs before her own. This idea can be a complication in some people’s idea of feminism, but at the same time, it exemplifies feminine strength and ability to take on the needs of others and to provide for a family.” This is smart, interesting and relevant. Is this the right place for it? If you are engaging in this way with what you see as a problem in feminist theory, you might want to begin with the problem and explain that Crumb (maybe ironically) is your way of getting at the problem.

    “In the Bible, the women who became mothers chose to do so.” -- that seems problematic. Maybe they live in a society where that norm is so powerfully enforced that they *must* desire to be mothers?

    “It is clear that where his wife comes from is very important. If a woman’s origin is important, it must mean that they themselves serve some sort of importance other than to just be a wife.” -- to be extremely negative, one could say that her significance lies in her being of good breeding stock (like an animal kept for breeding). This is a good example of where it’s worthwhile to consider alternatives.

    “ I believe motherhood, as portrayed in the Book of Genesis, is what makes the female characters strong and influential. “ -- this is another moment of argument, of course. I’d like to have a better understanding of what your primary argument is, and how the subsidiary argument line up as its components.

    Overall: How to cut? That’s really a question of how to focus, which in turn is really the question of what you’re really trying to do. The individual parts all have merit, but none of it is as focused as it might be.

    My instincts say that this is, in the end (maybe to your surprise) an essay about feminism - about how Crumb can be used to interrogate what you have identified as a fault-line in feminism: the problem of individualism vs. family or community. And if so, what is *your* argument - that the structure of feminism needs to become different, focusing more on alternatives to individualism, for instance? If this is your approach you have a big question to answer, and then some rearranging to do.

    But if you want to stick to a somewhat more narrow argument about Crumb, how to do that? That’s still up to you, but you need *some* kind of clarified focus. Are you interested ultimately in how numerous women in genesis are compatible with a more or less feminist view of the world? Are you then arguing that Crumb is basically bringing out a kind of latent pro-motherhood feminism in the text itself? I think this is your most likely approach - you mostly need to clarify what the argument as a whole is, and how the individual sections contribute to it, with a couple of them along the way possibly being irrelevant (for instance, are Lot’s daughters ultimately relevant to this version of your argument? Maybe not).