Women are often trapped in an essentially idle, domestic role,
praised for purity and lack of sexual desire, pampered as ornaments, but
given no effective life functions other than demonstrating a few social
graces and bearing children, as is established by the Judeo-Christian ethic
and is reinforced in the story of Ruth. Though the story of Ruth appears in
the Old Testament, its relevance is not limited by its datedness, but serves
as a direct parallel to the predicament of the modern woman. Though
Christianity no longer dominates so visibly as it did prior to secularization
and modernization, its remains a strong undercurrent in that its influence
is still felt in contemporary Western society. Likewise, in the story of Ruth,
God is not a physical presence but is felt in the affected decisions Ruth
makes and in the path her life takes. Ideals still prevalent in society today
are drawn from the male-dominated Christian ethic. Thus, God plays a
more subdued, but at the same time no less powerful role both in society
today and in the story of Ruth. This is evidenced in Ruth’s decision to stay
with her mother-in-law upon the death of her husband. Ruth does this not
according to her own desires, of which none are made known to the reader,
but rather acts upon the desires of God, man, and society in accordance to
what has been deemed “right”. The decision to remain with her
mother-in-law, then, is not only a symbol of acting upon theJudeo-Christian
ethic, but also of women’s dependence under that ethic. A mother is
ultimately the person on whom a child is raised to depend, so it is not
insignificant that, when robbed of a man on whom to depend, Ruth turns
not only to a mother figure, but to the mother of her husband, a male
figure. ?..for wherever you go, I will go, wherever you lodge I will
lodge…wherever you die, I will die..? (Ruth, 1:16) In this way the story of
Ruth reveals that under the Judeo-Christian ethic both ancient and modern
women cannot be revolutionary or independent as society has
predetermined standards, inflicted by that same Judeo-Christian ethic,
which must be adhered to. Both Ruth and modern women are faced with a
similar predicament: to resolve the conflict between passion and
independence, and responsibility and loyalty as outlined by a
Judeo-Christian society.
This conflict is resolved for both Ruth and the modern woman by the
elimination of awareness of personal desire and the total assimilation into
the culture. Whether through nature or nurture, women are able to step
outside themselves in an attempt to be objective, objectivity being defined
as seeing with the eyes of society which is falsely assumed to be in a
natural and unbiased state. Thus, in stepping outside of themselves,
women are attempting to see themselves as society sees them. It is for this
reason that Ruth is presented as being without personal desire and is a
fairly mundane character. This lack of personal desire enables Ruth, and
women in general, to join society, accept its ideals, and view themselves in
terms of these ideals. Thus the need for the immediate, physical presence
of God in the story of Ruth, as well as in modern society, is eliminated.
Womankind has become her own God, her own judge; the Judeo-Christian
ethic is so deeply ingrained in her that she follows it automatically and the
constraints not only come from without, but also from within. Society does
not allow for the realization of choice.
Ruth’s worth, and the worth of womankind, is now stripped down to
that given to them by a male dominated society under the Judeo-Christian
ethic that it adheres to. So it is, in the story of Ruth, that Ruth gains merit
as a worker and member of society only through the influence of her
employer, a man, and finally marries him, effectively, willingly sealing her
dependence on man, God, and society for a sense of worth. This action is
encouraged and somewhat instructed by Naomi. ?..When he lies down, take
note of the place where he does so. Then go, uncover a place at his feet,
and lie down. He will tell you what to do.? (Ruth, 3:4) Boaz, Ruth’s
husband, becomes a symbol of these things: man, God, and society.
Though considerable progress has been made toward freeing women from
the binding state of marriage since the women’s liberation movement took
hold, women are still defined, and define themselves, by the values of
society. A woman’s sexuality is only acceptable in terms of her male
counterpart. Fashion emphasizes the need to appeal to and satisfy the
demands and interests of a male-dominated society. Finally, concern with
the female figure epitomizes the objectification of women by society and by
women, themselves.
Within all these concerns that revolve around the Judeo-Christian
ethic and culture, is an appearance of freedom of will and decision for the
woman, but it is an illusion. Contemporary society encourages people to be
freethinking, to undergo self-discovery, to be innovative, and to make
choices that reflect personal beliefs, and yet this can never truly be
attained. An inescapable tradition inexorably flips each child into some
predestined groove like a penny or a sovereign in a banker’s rack. This
groove is established from birth, by one’s sex, and the paths between
women and men do not often cross. This destiny is only etched deeper by
any attempts to demonstrate the alleged independence. By breaking away
from her family and following Naomi to Bethlehem, Ruth digs herself
deeper still into the groove that ultimately determines her fate. Thus, Ruth
comes to represent a willing acceptance of such a fate. Ruth’s exemplary
adherence to the Judeo-Christian ethic paints her as a martyr. This is
furthered by Ruth’s bearing of a son, the grandfather of the great King
David. Ruth’s role as a real person is further undermined as she is
measured by her ability to bear children, rather than by her personal
attributes. Ultimately she is measured by her ability to give her husband
and, in turn, the world, a strong son. This is the ultimate act of
martyrdom: total sacrifice of the self through devotion to another person.
Yet, oblivious to personal desire and the possibility of choice, Ruth can
never be a true martyr. It must also be considered that Ruth is never
acknowledged as the mother or the creator of David, and therefore how can
she look upon herself as such. She has been schooled by society to be both
humble, unassuming, and submissive.
Although modern woman is no longer measured by her ability to
procreate, the choice to not have children is perceived as abnormal or
selfish, arising from a lack of responsibility and ability to be devoted to the
greater good rather than to personal achievement. Furthermore, the
inability to procreate is a taboo topic of discussion. So, the modern
woman, aware of personal desire and choice and powerfully drawn to it
suffers greatly from the conflict between self and society, passion and
responsibility. The story of Ruth becomes a metaphor for the plight of all
women who struggle to liberate themselves from the pressures of society.
In addition, it serves to highlight the expectations placed upon women
across the ages: to serve the family first, to keep a respectable image in
society, and to marry and procreate. Ruth then, ironically, becomes a
symbol for women’s oppression where she could easily have been a symbol
of liberation. In the context of the Old Testament, the irony is undeniable
as Ruth is traditionally known for her loyalty. However, this only furthers
her function as a symbol of oppression as her loyalty was to society, not to
herself, a situation from which it was impossible to benefit. Moreover, Ruth
is a symbol for sacrifice for the wrong reasons. She is caught in a limbo
between martyrdom and self-interest, between the beginnings of the
Judeo-Christian ethic and its end. Ruth is the ultimate modern woman; this
should be pitied, not celebrated.