Genesis from a Woman’s Perspective

For decades, women’s rights groups have spoken out about the “glass ceiling” in the workplace - income disparity - even the cost at the dry cleaners, (women’s blouses cost much more than men’s shirts) - and etc. In Adventism we have the Merikay case, and the ever-present women’s ordination issue. When my husband was still in school and I was the only one working as a teacher in the SDA system, I had to work hard to get labelled “head of household” to get all the benefits - women didn’t qualify at the time.

Today, society is fractured along political lines, racially, economically, and socially. Last summer was a scorcher with communities burning and getting looted etc. Socially, all kinds of people are being banished from their jobs and positions based on politics and the currently accepted language patterns. One of those is “degenderizing” society (if there is such a word). Can’t say mankind - words that assume a specific gender. Unisex bathrooms are popping up in schools, and books that used to be “banned in Boston” are required reading in schools. At a public school board meeting, one parent was forbidden to read from sexually explicit books from the school library because it was inappropriate. Lot’s of words have been banned and new ones have been invented. It is now inappropriate to use the word “mother”, to be substituted by “birthing person”. Newly created emojis include a picture of a pregnant man.

Mothers are created by giving birth to a baby; or, a child can be adopted - both are legitimately mothers. But now, identifying men can be legally called “birthing person”. But, when a government official can’t define “what is a woman”, I’d say, socially and legally womanhood has been taken away from biological women - like those spoken of in Genesis.

“Does a biological woman have a voice, too, in 2022. [?]”
If we follow the current social and linguistic norms, the answer is “no”. This does not disparage any transgender folk, they are free to identify in whatever gender they need to be, but the one name, specific to women who have given birth is “mother”, which women should not be forced to share with biological men.

Then I also mentioned the sports’ issue, when men identify as women, later in life, and then compete with female athletes and win every time. This makes it impossible for a female athlete to achieve first place in any sport. That destroys women’s sports - again, marginalizing women 21st century style.


“Equality” is lifting everybody up. What is being described is actually stripping all sides of identity. What appears to be equality is actually dragging everyone down.

Respectfully, I disagree that seeking to understand a woman’s hopes/aspirations in an ancient culture is distorting, shallow and achieves nothing.

You told a beautiful story about your grandmother about a culture and time much removed from mine. In telling I learned a bit and perhaps thought a bit differently.

The same with the author’s article.

1 Like

Thank you Gwen Wilkinson. I thoroughly enjoyed your article. And, it caused me to think differently.

When my youngest daughter was small she always asked questions that I didn’t know the answer to and our little joke between us was “that’s a question for Jesus”. I look forward in the next world to having a conversation with some of the women you mentioned. I suspect it will be very enlightening!


Not sure why all the discombobulations over reading Genesis from a women perspective, why not? Women were there, treated equally or not should not be the issue to me. I have always enjoyed female preaching because of their perspective which is the other half of life. We had in our church a Black Female Elder who could bring an audience to tears with her preaching…that a male preacher would put you to sleep with. A Biblical perspective of the Bible is greatly needed in greater quantity.


as i see it, this is where the SOP comes in…to me, one of the strengths of egw is her thoroughly female perspective (most of her main assistants were women, as well)…the same story you read in the OT comes to vivid life when you read it in egw…much more than the OT bible writers, she delves into thoughts, feelings, doubts, cultural conditioning, etc., of both male and female subjects, in a way that’s thoroughly riveting…while she never seriously contradicts the bible writers - except when she sides with Moses over Paul, in her view that Eve’s subjugation to Adam was a result of her role in the Fall, rather than Paul’s view, which is that it was the result of creation order - she supplies a lot of added detail that makes the narrative that much more interesting…

i find that the combination of the bible’s signpost narrative with the extreme detail supplied by egw enables a full, memorable understanding…

@Sirje I don’t see how any of the things you cite are in any way taking motherhood from anyone or reducing women’s voices within society.


OK. Nobody has to agree with me. I’m just saying how I see it…


It is interesting to note that after Eve there are only two women mentioned by name until Sarah. The two wives of Lamech, Adah and Zillah.

In Romans 5 Paul details the two Adams, he does not mention Eve or the Serpent. He places the blame for sin and death squarely on Adam. Perhaps Adam was more involved in support of Eve’s decision to explore the forbidden tree, then has been previously considered.

1 Like

It’s not that I disagree with you, just that I don’t understand how any of those things detracts from motherhood.

To me it is not unlike the argument that gay marriage somehow detracts from traditional marriage, somehow makes it less. My response to that is that no one else’s marriage has any impact on my marriage.

“Play it again, Sam”…

If a biological female identifies as male, and then gets pregnant and gives birth, the current liberal social protocol claims that “men” then can give birth, and to equalizing the “men” (giving birth) with females giving birth, calling both, “birth persons”. They then claim that men can be pregnant and give birth. In actuality that doesn’t matter at all; however, when then legal documents need to be filled out, and all you can check is “birthing person” it removes traditional motherhood from the social consciousness, making it simply as biological event that both men and women can experience. It homogenizes humanity removing distinctive identities. :pregnant_man: Click and learn.

Explain that to your preteen.

You’re going to have to click on it in the enoji selection group. The caption reads “pregnant man”.

1 Like

Sorry, but that’s not compelling at all to me. The fact that some biologically female individuals do not identify as women does not in any way detract from motherhood - either from yours or theirs.

I’m rather sure their relationships with their children as just as motherly as yours are. And I’m rather sure that this has always existed in the human population, but just went unrecognized.

Do you have an example of a legal document that uses the term that seems to offend and rob you of motherhood? And, how does the existence of that document do that to you?

Do documents that ask for “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” instead of “Father” and “Mother” also impact your life experience, denigrating it in some way?


I’m not saying that. Let’s just end this by agreeing you don’t understand my point.

1 Like

Correct. Not a clue.


This is a great question, because so many stories in the Bible appear completely biased, suggesting that they were written by men who didn’t have much consideration for women. I don’t know what it is, but something is wrong with those stories. Just imagine a father taking a son in secrecy from their home, without telling the mother that he is going to kill the kid!!! That cannot be right!


I could not understand that one either since there is nothing wrong with your post. Someone must be highly biased and just didn’t like a straightforward comment coming from, again, a woman…

I came here to read this particular article because I learned about it directly from it’s author, yesterday at the E14 SS class (it was already Saturday morning in Australia).


There is the story somewhere in Geneis.A nd there are men through the milleniums who apply this to their understanding - - -

1 Like

Yes, very conveniently used to perpetuate abuse of women, diminishing their value as human beings. Tired of this “headship” heresy that is being propagated in the Adventist Church in order to keep the Church control in the hands of men destituted of real leadership gifts. It all sounds so Medieval…


Well right, women were property of men. Typically either their fathers or their husbands. That’s why a man should not covet his neighbor’s wife. She is his property. On the other hand, a woman could presumably covet her neighbor’s husband all she wanted. He wasn’t anyone else’s property.


So now, when two men or two women marry, which one is supposed to be the “property?”
Just wondering… :wink: :roll_eyes::scream: