BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Misogyny and Sexism in Religion

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Papess
04:41 / 09.04.07
There are many common themes amongst world religions. Ones of redemption, institution of marriage, aesthetics, sexual conduct, etc...However, one of these common themes seems to be misogyny. It is not just sexism, either. It is an outright admission that in *pick any major religion* women are considered evil, impure and largely, insignificant - except for maybe, purposes of procreation. This is not just one religion, it is all major religions across the world!

I turned away from Christianity, recognizing even at a young age that it was not inclusive of my gender and that the most exalted example of female divinity, (since there clearly are examples of male divinity in Catholicism/Christianity), was that of a virgin mother. That in itself poses an issue, (just try being a virgin and a mother!). but even The Madonna was not to be worshiped, simply adored.

When I was studying qabalah at age seventeen, I was stopped several times by strangers, all self-proclaimed Jewish men, and told that I shouldn't be studying it because I was not forty and male. I learned that women in Judaism had many more commandments to obey and were denied access to scripture, study and debate. Why? Why would refusing women the opportunity to learn and debate, and speak their mind be supported by this doctrine, and so many others? Why is the notion of impurity in reference to women acceptable, even just a little bit?

For example, in Buddhism, there are stories of how bhukkinis and female arhats were raped, but since these women were enlightened, they didn't resist and were content in accepting that the rapist(s) would reap what they sow. However, if you are a bodhisattva, and you know someone is about to commit a "sin", for lack of a better term, isn't it better to stop them? Not just because it is an ethical or moral issue, but isn't that a teaching in Buddhist scripture? While it is not unheard of that religious doctrine is contradictory at times, the consistent and systematic denigration of women is often in direct contradiction to the doctrine as a whole.

Better yet, I have heard and read various accounts of the female practitioners that would gain bodhi from being raped, or in turn, would enlighten their attacker(s) during the assault, (Yeshe Tsogyal being a good example). Sometimes, I get the creepy feeling that this is just an excuse for rape. It is like telling women that if they didn't become enlightened while they were raped then they have even more to be ashamed about. You know, if you "complain" about being raped then you are even more frowned upon because you couldn't taste the one taste...or some other oppressive malarkey. Being raped in many cultures is blamed on the woman. So, how is submitting to it suppose to be better?

I know of instances in modern day, in the past 20 years, where women were asked to leave rooms because a monk has entered it. (I am going to have a hard time to explain this one to the board, but basically, it is the woman's responsibility to care for the monks vows and coddle their libidos with respect to it.) She was shocked and confused that she was, in essence, being told she was subordinate to the monk, responsible for him and his vows, and that she was to set controls on herself rather than the monk just being able to control himself. I think that last point is what baffles me the most. That these doctrines are actually undermining the men, as well. Is it not insulting to men that a religion deems them incapable of self-control? What kind of enlightenment could they possibly be attaining?

I just don't get it, and I am frustrated. Why does misogyny and sexism exist in every major religion and why is it still okay?
 
 
This Sunday
05:37 / 09.04.07
My unhelpful pat answer is that religions that aren't big on persecution tend to be killed off by those who are. Or outlawwed, abused, robbed blind and laughed at.

I sometimes wonder why my family, which is very mixed, when you get down to it, tends to focus on the Native angle, as it were. In particular (since we've got a few tribes intermixed) the Tsalagi angle. And I always come to the conclusion that it's because there was just emphasis being put on personal responsibility, much more than any birth-trait. This does not work as some pan-Indian thing, and certainly other tribes and traditions aboriginal to the Western Hemisphere, do not necessarily hold the same views, nor to many modern Cherokee, of any random clan or faction.

But I've almost never heard my grandpa say (or stand by while someone else says) horrible things about someone because of the color of their skin, their sex/gender, their sexuality, or any habit or belief they hold that doesn't infringe immediately on others. And he always downplays it as if everyone tries to be that civil about things.

And, of course, Native Americans didn't have what amounted to the freedom of religion accorded virtually everyone else in the United States, until the whole AIM fiasco of the seventies. Literally. We're still under, in many ways, the Fish and Game Admin. Which, is better than the Dept. of War, but still... Argh!

We are continually referred to, and sometimes refer to ourselves, as matriarchal. But, we aren't, and we weren't. No more than we're patriarchal. Because one of the basic things is that, there are roles people take on, actions people commit - by choice, because someone can always put a gun to your head, but you can always take a bullet even if you do it crying and dirtying your underpants - and many are arranged by gender/sex, but they aren't necessitated or limited to those elements.

The whole thing of, especially plains tribes referring to women as being 'on their sicktime' is something we joke about as being evidence of some unhealthy paranoia. But it's an unhealthy paranoia held by cultures all over the world.

Again, if you accept, culturally, that women are there and are capable of whatever, or extending past that 'whatever' then you are labelled matriarchal. And probably shut down.

So, when people ask me - and I get a little ashamed/paranoid - about 'why didn't you have more Christmas in your life?' or whatever holiday or get-together... The coolest cats in the New Testament, tend to be the women Jesus chats up at the well, or Mary and her donkey, and not Paul - I'm so meek I'll call myself 'Humble'- with his absurd regulations and concerns, or whoever basically decides yet another Mary is just taking up time and once she announces Jesus is Back! and is routinely ignored, is simply shuffled out of the narrative. That's why we didn't have more Christmas, because the whole thing kinda sucks on so many levels, and the good stuff... is easy to adopt, adapt, and otherwise take interest in without the creepy womenz-have-oozy-cooties-and-brought-damnation paranoia.

And we all, man, woman, nonsexed, third-sexed, intersexed, straight or gay or sleeping with the bears, get to say "That's wrong," or "Right on," or any other judgment call. Doesn't make it a law, but we were never particularly good with laws, anyway. Hopping up and delivering a list of your badass achievements isn't going to help, showing your creatively applied scars or throwing out all the bad shit you've been through in life isn't going to convince anyone you're anything but human. And human is a helluva thing to be.

I mean, all us homoplasmates gotta stick together, yeah? Or, at least, be where and what we think the best position to be is, and hope everybody else makes it, too.

That's something else I picked up from my grandpa: 'acceptable losses' is bullshit. Everybody's coming along, even if you have to make your distance and wait for the stragglers or procrastinators. Because we all get there.

Ever notice that the really sexist, racist, or otherwise xenophic and self-paranoid religions are all based on the idea that only a chosen few are gonna get to the good end? Sets up a false competition, y'know? And a harsh trap, for that matter. Man, that's gotta suck.

We get somebody looking over our palms, soles, history and style, and then a cup of tea and a place to relax. (It goes on, from there, but it's nice break, y'know?) Any Hell looks so so so silly next to that. Heaven(s), too.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
11:14 / 09.04.07
For example, in Buddhism, there are stories of how bhukkinis and female arhats were raped, but since these women were enlightened, they didn't resist and were content in accepting that the rapist(s) would reap what they sow. However, if you are a bodhisattva, and you know someone is about to commit a "sin", for lack of a better term, isn't it better to stop them? Not just because it is an ethical or moral issue, but isn't that a teaching in Buddhist scripture?

Though isn't a bodhisattva an entity with such dedication to sentient beings that they forgo the attainment of Buddhahood, in order to assist them towards enlightenment? One who has eliminated all attachment, save for the greatest of all, and so doesn't interpret things the same way that the non enlightened would? Whilst being raped is an abhorrent act to you and I, it has no greater or lesser value to the bodhisattva than not being raped, however if it helps the sentient being fulfill their karma and get one step closer to enlightenment, then its a 'good' thing. Stopping them from committing a sin would mean that they'd take longer to learn, and perhaps commit more sins because of this, which would lead to suffering; sometimes you've just gotta let someone make mistakes so they'll learn how not to make them.

She was shocked and confused that she was, in essence, being told she was subordinate to the monk, responsible for him and his vows, and that she was to set controls on herself rather than the monk just being able to control himself.

To me that's not subordination, but rather a full acknowledgement of the power that women can possess over men, especially those who haven't developed the power to resist them; the same thing is seen in Islam where it's acknowledged that most men are not strong enough to resist temptation and so temptation must not be presented, just as it's seen by hiding in a cellar should a hurricane come. I'm not a great fan of avoiding something that I'm not strong enough to deal with, as in doing so I will miss out on the opportunity to gain that strength, but there are times when doing so is best for my survival.

Why does misogyny and sexism exist in every major religion and why is it still okay?

Because they haven't developed the strength where it is no longer needed.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:19 / 09.04.07
To me that's not subordination, but rather a full acknowledgement of the power that women can possess over men, especially those who haven't developed the power to resist them

lol what

Or, rather more helpfully: I'm getting an uncomfortable vibe from your post, Mako. We sem to be verging into "ooh those evile predatory females seducting the innocent men away from the paths of righteousness (coz without women around men neverever think about sex, let alone have it)." territory here. Humour me a little and reassure me that this is not what you meant?
 
 
Ticker
13:10 / 09.04.07
and...

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that any gender is more sexual than another. I have also read that it's because women are more sexual that they tempt men just by being in the same space and so must remedy this with modest dress to the point of hiding their forms.

As pointed out by other folks on the board the responsibility of control lies not with the inspiration for the loss of it but ultimately with the one who loses it.

I'd say it's the taught gender roles and assumptions that I find so dangerous in most religions. The idea that there is a template of sexuality and sin designed right into the human being overlooks changes in culture and the very defination of sin itself.
 
 
Papess
13:24 / 09.04.07

I'd say it's the taught gender roles and assumptions...


Bingo! Except, to not recognize gender at all (not that you are saying this, xk) would bring in other issues of covering up inequalities and imbalances in representation, for example.
 
 
Ticker
13:56 / 09.04.07
What do we think about the modern religions like neo paganism, are they addressing these issues or porting them over unexamined?

I personally see the sacred codifying of gender roles around reproduction to be problematic especially as population issues are on the increase. I believe we have touched on this in the gender and magic thread. I've also run into some neo pagan recons that turn to 'traditional' defs of gender roles as somehow informing their spiritual interpretations of how the *should be* now.

It chills me much more to see people electing to retain these beliefs and justifying them rather than just porting them about unexamined.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:21 / 09.04.07
Oh man this is such a huge huge HUGE sticking-point for me as I try to form links with other people in my trad. In the various branches of NT it's less about the veneration of the heterosexual sex act than about people who feel that the Gods cannot be honoured unless we all pretend like we're living in a fucking 9th century village--complete with 9th century gender roles and sexual mores. This is further problematised by the fact that what we know about life in a 9th century village and even the Gods themselves is filtred through the lens of medieval Xtian attitudes. It's a mess.

And then of course there's the attraction that NT faiths seem to have for people with a huge great boatload of prejudices that they want the Gods to somehow validate. I just sit there with my mouth open sometimes watching some people tie themselves into knots as they try and cram what are essentially Victorian Christian sexual mores into the extant lore. For example, did you know that our beloved Elder Kin would have been horrified by abortion and that the Gods are dishonoured by it, because Ásatrú is a Life Culture and female reproductive rights are part of the modern Death Culture? (They must have a different Elder Kin in mind, this couldn't be the same Elder Kin that used to expose unwanted babies to die.) And dont' get me started on attitudes to queer sexualities. Gah scream flail headdesk.
 
 
Lugue
14:27 / 09.04.07
And dont' get me started on attitudes to queer sexualities. Gah scream flail headdesk.

Actually, hum, could you? Get started, I mean. Could someone? Has anyone, anywhere, on Lith? I'm rather curious.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:35 / 09.04.07
Wrote a post here that touches on the topic of homophobic attitudes amongst NT recons. There is other work around here too which could likely be profitably dug up and bumped, I'll have a shufti later on.
 
 
Papess
14:38 / 09.04.07
Yes, there is a difference between not recognizing gender and codifying attributes to them. That is definitely the problem, or one of them, to begin with. It seems foolish to single out the few differences - those few being largely, physical, I gather - between the sexes and blow them out of proportion and create doctrine based on that. It is mind-numbingly short-sighted and misguided. I am trying to fathom, to what end did/does this serve, and if the insidious condemnation of the form/gender that myself and two thirds of the world is of any purpose at all.
 
 
Ticker
14:44 / 09.04.07
And then of course there's the attraction that NT faiths seem to have for people with a huge great boatload of prejudices that they want the Gods to somehow validate.

I find this to be true as well in other faiths, it seems to a be a sort of universal pass the buck on why a bigoted attitude is included in the packaging. I find it mind boggling how modern practioners facing prejudice against their faiths can somehow maintain their own unexamined prejudices. Or worse laud them as essential beliefs.
 
 
Lugue
14:46 / 09.04.07
(I appreciate that - the link and potential look-around -, Mordant. These are things I'm entirely unfamiliar with [as is 99% of Temple subject matter], but am interested in.)
 
 
Ticker
14:54 / 09.04.07
I am trying to fathom, to what end did/does this serve, and if the insidious condemnation of the form/gender that myself and two thirds of the world is of any purpose at all.

Well, a cosmology serves to explain why people do what and how they are supposed to do it. A fixed cosomology doesn't allow for change or personal differences while a fluid cosmology often does.

If you link one type of person's value to something in the untouchable unassailable doctrine you are fixing that value. An example would be Eve and original sin being used to justify a myraid of mistreatments of women or Sodom being reenvisioned for homosexual judgments.


Ok so my understanding of Jesus (as a lead figure in a major religion) was that He was supportive of equality:

Some degree of prejudicial, sexist treatment of Christian women began to be considered as part of what became mainstream orthodoxy at least by the first quarter of the second century.

That Jesus' message included a liberated and liberating view of women and their equality with men may be seen in the both the gospel writings and in what we can consistently read between the lines in those writings. Some of the indications from the gospels of Jesus' recognition of and/or non-discriminatory treatment of women are the following:

(1) Paul's and the Gospel of Mark's representation of Jesus as treating women and men equally regarding matters of marriage and divorce: 1Co 7:10; Mar 10:11,12.

(2) The Fourth Gospel's representation of Jesus as privately ministering to a woman, who then went back and announced Jesus as the Christ: Joh 4:5-29.

(3) The Fourth Gospel's representation of Jesus as treating of women and men equally regarding adultery: John 8:1-11. Only the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus as the offender, not the complicit man. Jesus tactfully did not allow the woman to be singled out for punishment. (Though this story does not appear to be part of the original text of John, even the UBS's Greek New Testament editors conclude, "The account has all the earmarks of historical veracity." {Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, NY: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 188.})

(4) Mathew's and Mark's representation of Jesus as instructing us regarding the woman who anointed Jesus' head with expensive perfumed oil, "Wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her:" Mark 14:9; Mat 26:13. It is worth noting that historically there has not been much compliance with this from Christian men or women. See also Luk 7:36-50, Joh 11:2; Joh 12:1-8, where Jesus' feet were anointed. (For a far more thorough examination and comparison of each of the four gospels' stories of a woman anointing Jesus, browse http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/anointing.htm.)

(5) The gospels' representation of the women followers of Jesus as being among those who observed Jesus' crucifixion: Mat 27:55,56; Luk 23:49; Joh 19:25-27.

(6) The gospels' representation of the women followers of Jesus as being the first to see/proclaim/preach the risen Jesus: Mat 28:1-10; Luk 24:1-10; Joh 20:1,2, 11-18.


From here: www.bibletexts.com
 
 
Papess
15:24 / 09.04.07
Well, I have no issue with Mr.Christ. ALthough Paul is a well-known misogynist. What I find frustrating is the implication by governing religious faculties that Jesus was, or that somehow, this is truly Christ's spiritual legacy. Or, just the blatantly convenient destruction of the Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi. (Or, perhaps this is a joke too, I get confused about what is actually true sometimes with so much restructuring of history through biased opioins and Hollywood movies. I find it interesting that the tactic of calling Mary Magdalene a prostitute has backfired on the Catholic Church, only to empower sex workers, and now suddenly, the story is changed in the minds of millions due to sensationalist fiction. It's proably better for another thread, though.).
 
 
panthergod
15:56 / 09.04.07
so--just for the record, I'm trying to gauge where everyone is at--

There are no general differences between men and women whatsoever, other than the physical?
 
 
grant
15:59 / 09.04.07
There's actually a growing movement in some corners of Catholicism to declare Mary, mother of Christ, the "co-redemptrix," which is theologically questionable, given Christ's unique status, but not completely out of the question.

It seems to me that misogyny/sexism in religion comes from extra-religious sources, rather than anything inherent in religion itself -- except inasmuch as a religion is made of a group of people agreeing to share a bunch of ideas in common. The Mary Magdalene-as-harlot thing is probably a decent example of that.

That reading came along thanks to Pope Gregory (read the Dr. Karen King interview) in the 591 C.E. Even taken as truth, it becomes an interesting elevation of a sexy sexy sex-worker. Of course issues of being "saved" from harlotry and control and all that come in, too. But prior to that turning point -- the Gregory sermons, I mean -- she was widely seen as one of several strong women mentioned in the gospels. There are a few others in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

So it seems likely there was something other than the religious texts themselves to blame.
 
 
Ticker
16:05 / 09.04.07
so--just for the record, I'm trying to gauge where everyone is at--

There are no general differences between men and women whatsoever, other than the physical?


Hey, well IMO the science I have available seems to indicate the variations from person to person are so great and the impact of cultural training/intrepretation so profound that I personally cannot accept generalizations. I believe making general statements about gender excludes and confines different individuals and fails to provide useful data. Differences between specific individuals can be examined and explored.
 
 
panthergod
16:19 / 09.04.07
Hey, well IMO the science I have available seems to indicate the variations from person to person are so great and the impact of cultural training/intrepretation so profound that I personally cannot accept generalizations. I believe making general statements about gender excludes and confines different individuals and fails to provide useful data. Differences between specific individuals can be examined and explored.

I hear that, but, forgive me for being blunt, but if it doesn't apply to you, cool, there is always an exception to any general statement. But if I were to say that women tend to be more emotionally mature then men are, would threat cause an uproar at how I am daring to not included all of the emotionally remote women out there? If I were to say that Men tend to be physically stronger then Women, would there be an uproar of how many female body builders and athletes there are?

I mean, At some point IMO people have to focus a bit less on how an opinion or piece of information makes them feel based on how it makes them feel and a bit more on whether or not the point being alluded to has actual real world legitimacy or not. Stereotypes suck, but they don't spring out of nowhere.

I fully a admit that I am struggling with my own sexism as a male and I have no claim on the absolute truth obviously, but the reflexive backlash against anything that might even resemble something that an dominator/oppressive group might use as justification for their evil behavior tend to spring not out of a search of truth but more out of a resentment of the evils that those notions have facilitated when taken to thier extremes.
 
 
Ticker
16:41 / 09.04.07
I hear that, but, forgive me for being blunt, but if it doesn't apply to you, cool, there is always an exception to any general statement. But if I were to say that women tend to be more emotionally mature then men are, would threat cause an uproar at how I am daring to not included all of the emotionally remote women out there? If I were to say that Men tend to be physically stronger then Women, would there be an uproar of how many female body builders and athletes there are?

Why would it be useful to say women are more emotionally mature than men? Where is this assumption coming from, how do you *know* this is true? which women and which men are you speaking of? To be specific we can turn to studies done that seem to indicate biological size and strength in male bodies over female bodies, but can you find such a study about emotional maturity that may not have to do with cultural factors?

Ok let me try to be clear. If we agree male humans on average are stronger then female humans on avergae what does that mean? Where do you want to go with that? Does it mean that men should do more of some activity and women less? Then how does that standard affect the people who do not fit into the average?


I mean, At some point IMO people have to focus a bit less on how an opinion or piece of information makes them feel based on how it makes them feel and a bit more on whether or not the point being alluded to has actual real world legitimacy or not. Stereotypes suck, but they don't spring out of nowhere.


This is why many of feel it is so important to examine them for validity often. I can say a lot of things but those statements shouldn't be taken as the grounds to build a reality around unless they can be verified. for example if I say all cats are dangerous and you agree and then other people agree how will that impact the way cats are treated by people who have never encountered one? Or how will that change the way people start interacting with them?



I fully a admit that I am struggling with my own sexism as a male and I have no claim on the absolute truth obviously, but the reflexive backlash against anything that might even resemble something that an dominator/oppressive group might use as justification for their evil behavior tend to spring not out of a search of truth but more out of a resentment of the evils that those notions have facilitated when taken to thier extremes.


I agree, but the discussion needs to happen in a respectful space and with thoughtful attention. this space is protective of the voices that are usually ignored offboard. What you are experiencing is what many of us feel out there in the world.

I invite you to talk with me and others about unpacking sexist thoughts and behavior. I have to do it constantly, it never suddenly ends.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:47 / 09.04.07
I fully a admit that I am struggling with my own sexism as a male and I have no claim on the absolute truth obviously, but the reflexive backlash against anything that might even resemble something that an dominator/oppressive group might use as justification for their evil behavior tend to spring not out of a search of truth but more out of a resentment of the evils that those notions have facilitated when taken to thier extremes.

First up, if you are describing the reactions of women as a "reflexive backlash", you are clearly not struggling against your sexism. You are, in fact, struggling against anything that challenges it, by seeking to write it off as a "reflexive backlash". So, you are in fact actively oprating in support of sexism, and indeed in support of anything else that serves to protect you from having to consider your own position.

The rest of this is basically just the "PC gone mad" argument with the language changed a bit. There are bad things in the world, but if you treat things that I do not think are bad as if they were, you are clearly not doing so because I could possibly be mistaken, but because you are overreacting and being irrational. I can function as an arbiter of what is an appropriate response to stimuli, not only although I have no direct experience of that something (say, the representation of my sexuality as conditioned by sexual assault, or the representation of my being as oriented essentially around a capacity to bear children which may or may not ever actually get used) but because I have no such experience, and as such will not get all vaporous and emotional about it.

One of the great things about this argument path is that it means that people who experience discrimination the least - usually straight white men - get to decide when other people are entitled to respond to mistreatment, because they get to decide what constitutes mistreatment, and when they are being unreasonable, which also enshrines reason and judgement in straightness, whiteness and maleness. Gay people, non-white people, and women are, in this model, prone to getting unnecessarily upset, making any negative response they might have to something that I, somebody not afflicted by the history of oppression that makes them so irrational when faced with perfectly reasonable arguments and suggestions, have said or done necessarily suspect.
 
 
Blake Head
17:55 / 09.04.07
I have a personal example I’d like to introduce if that’s ok, which focuses on behaviours less acutely harmful than some of those above but could still be considered as oppressive to women. The acceptable face of religiously derived sexism, if you like.

A soon to be married Christian friend of mine and I were discussing relationships, marriage and religion, and (via a digression on Paradise Lost) started talking about what people bring to relationships, and the different responsibilities men and women have within those relationships*. My friend’s partner has had considerably less experience of their religion than he has, and he explained that he felt one of the things that he felt he would bring to their upcoming marriage was a greater knowledge of Christianity, and that furthermore this was something he thought he had a dual responsibility to impart to others as an individual and as a man under religious obligation to, spiritually, be didactically responsible for wife and family, while his partner brought different sets of knowledge and experience to their relationship. I questioned this (politely), and said that in some ways it was fortuitous for them as a couple that this balance existed already, and that in a different relationship a woman might have a greater knowledge of the faith of her partner than he did, and the imposition of the idea of a chain of spiritual instruction from God to man to woman might not be the best fit, and certainly less convenient. His response was that, essentially, since it was all God’s will even such a situation would be for the best, and that in a similar situation he’d encountered the male partner in a newly married couple had visibly grown into that authoritative role, in his opinion. And at about this point, feeling a lack of progress on this topic to be forthcoming, the conversation drifted away onto different things.

Now, in the instance of this particular couple, I am sufficiently convinced that this, if anything, would be a benevolent dictatorship, and they’re both educated and conscientious young people who obviously care about each other and are unlikely to harm one another against the other’s will, but it’s still something that makes me feel uncomfortable for the obvious reasons. I don’t actually think either of them hold misogynistic views (as they would understand that) and would both stress the importance of strong females within their religion and community, and of relationships as a two way street with regards to learning. And yet they would both accept a relationship dynamic which places the man in the position of having a greater responsibility and authority than the woman in matters of spiritual education, and they would defend this on the principle that it’s divinely ordained – beyond which point I think that personally there’s very little fruitful discussion to be had on the issue, and I’m probably lacking the knowledge to argue the point with them on the details of their own faith.

So: moving beyond the obviously objectionable idea that women are evil, impure or somehow inferior to men, are there strategies for dealing with less severe but possibly more prevalent religious sexisms which attempt to argue that men are not superior to women but simply different, when that difference continues to restrict and define what roles women are expected to fulfil?

*NB: I am all on board the secular love-boat, and don’t think that responsibilities determined solely by gender difference are justifiable when applied to individuals or groups, just so’s we’re clear.
 
 
Ticker
18:05 / 09.04.07

So: moving beyond the obviously objectionable idea that women are evil, impure or somehow inferior to men, are there strategies for dealing with less severe but possibly more prevalent religious sexisms which attempt to argue that men are not superior to women but simply different, when that difference continues to restrict and define what roles women are expected to fulfil?


BH: I believe the 'objectionable idea' is directly linked to the belief in these systems that men are superior to women and that is the difference. If you investigate the reasons, sort of retro engineer the arguements if you will, you'll find the superiority is used well rooted in either 1. man as created in the image of the Godhead uniquely and women as a sub creation of man 2. women having been tainted by Eve. Maybe even the very painful 'menz be smarter' comes up which as we know, is an opinion unfounded in fact.

You have to dig down to the why. Ask straight out 'why do you think men are superior to perform X?' 'what is the difference between men and women's capabilites to serve their God?'

It's also a good idea to arm yourself with biblical references about notable Christian women to call attention to. Does that help?
 
 
Princess
18:22 / 09.04.07
You could always reference Galatians 3:28-

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

(NIV)
 
 
Princess
18:27 / 09.04.07
Would this be the correct place to talk about St. Maria Goretti?

Check the wiki link for the full skinny, but the half skinny decaf is that she was martyred in defence of her virginity. Some feminists have interpreted this as "better dead than raped" and complained that the Catholic church is being misogynistic.
Papal Infalibility aside, what do you all think?
 
 
Blake Head
18:39 / 09.04.07
Sorry, possibly I didn’t phrase it clearly enough, I would absolutely agree with you that the justification of sexist practices by appealing to men’s essential differences to women as opposed to their supposed superiority is often something that boils down to essentially the same thing. Phrased in terms of difference, I think the answer to your questions (from a point of view I don’t share) is effectively “God said so” or “God made men and women in different ways, to perform different functions, with different but not superior or inferior capabilities to perform those functions, and one of those different capabilities is in ability to perform X”.

Broadly, I think that it’s obviously best to go as prepared as possible into any discussion, biblical references included, but in this instance I’m talking about someone who has been raised all their life in a particular faith, takes it very seriously and is knowledgeable regarding it, and where I guess I’m saying their views are fairly entrenched and consistent and unlikely to be swayed by an outsider’s perspective on the matter, no matter how well argued. Even in the wider terms of the thread addressing sexism in religions not our own where we are not best placed to argue the internal consistency of a particular religion’s views on gender might be something to bear thinking about. It might not be possible to always remove the religious justification for certain beliefs. The more hypothetical way of framing this would be, if someone strongly believes that God has said someone of Gender A is better suited to a certain task than Gender B, and can consistently if not unequivocally back that up with references to their belief system or its holy texts, and where there is not such a gross level of discrimination taking place that some form of intervention is required, what can you do, other than choose not to be involved in that (aspect of) the religion yourself?

[Which, I guess, is just pushing the issue back to whatever we want to select as “gross discrimination”, but that’s what I got for now]
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
00:57 / 10.04.07
Humour me a little and reassure me that this is not what you meant?

Lol, no... though I think that's the mentality of a great many religions, especially those that haven't really changed all that much in the past few centuries/millenia; whats the deal with that anyway, the lack of change and the outdated modes of thought I mean.

The operative word in my statement was "can", with specific mention of those without the ability to disassociate themselves from their baser instincts, which ironically in this case is a monk. Whilst women are often seen in religion as being inferior to men, this is often because they are seen to be superior in their ability to dominate the attentions of men, primarily in regards to male/female interaction but also in regards to "the paths of righteousness". In Taoism it is stated that whilst nothing is more soft and weak than water, it has no equal in regards to overcoming that which is firm and strong, and this is sort of what I was getting at in my original statement; that whilst many religious circles view women as being the inferior sex, this perception reveals the inferiority of those that hold it.
 
 
Papess
16:17 / 10.04.07
I am intrigued with the discussion so far. I would just like to address Mako:

Though isn't a bodhisattva an entity with such dedication to sentient beings that they forgo the attainment of Buddhahood, in order to assist them towards enlightenment?

As it is written in the 46 Branch Vows of the Bodhisattva :
14. Claiming Bodhisattvas should remain in cyclic existence. Holding the view that Bodhisattvas should not be attracted to liberation, not be afraid of delusion and not to become separate from delusion, but rather that a Bodhisattva's job is to roam in cyclic existence for three countless aeons while cultivating enlightenment, incurs this downfall. Such an attitude shows that you do not understand the nature of cyclic existence, delusion and the Bodhisattva path. Instead, a Bodhisattva is to achieve liberation and full enlightenment in order to be of greatest benefit to others.

I think Buddhahood is an integral part of being a bodhisattva, and vice-versa.

Whilst being raped is an abhorrent act to you and I, it has no greater or lesser value to the bodhisattva than not being raped,...

And the act of defending one's self is contrary to that?

...however if it helps the sentient being fulfill their karma and get one step closer to enlightenment, then its a 'good' thing. Stopping them from committing a sin would mean that they'd take longer to learn, and perhaps commit more sins because of this, which would lead to suffering; sometimes you've just gotta let someone make mistakes so they'll learn how not to make them.

While I agree with your theory, it would be helpful to have accounts of female arhats handing out bodhi to potential rapists with a thwack to their head. What is so enlightening about the example of surrending your body and life over to a violent and ignorant man who has nothing but his own selfish pleasure in mind? How is that a good example for women? How much more beneficial it would be to have her fight back and liberate billions of women, than to chose an action that solely liberates this one male? I mean sure he needs to be liberated (clearly), but could there just be one example of this type of liberating done by a female? Maybe there are some. If you know some, then link me, please! I feel so conflicted on this issue.

To me that's not subordination...

I was reffering, rather poorly, to the Rules of Ordination. for nuns in Buddhism. I can't seem to find a link and proper passages quick enough, but nuns, no matter how long they have been a nun, are subordinate to monks, even if they had only taken ordination a moment ago. Now, the monks are have a hierarchy based on the years served.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
18:02 / 10.04.07
And the act of defending one's self is contrary to that?

No, but I think you're viewing it from a standpoint that rape is wrong and there is nothing that can justify it; there are numerous examples in religion where one sacrifices themselves for the greater good, Jesus being nailed to the sphere of Tiphareth being most noteable, even though in doing so they are subjected to things that are most noteably not good. Traffic lights and speed humps arn't installed unless someone gets run over, and racism in disney cartoons doesn't seem that bad until a few million people are showered with Zyklon-B; whilst its horrific that such things need to occur for us to pay attention and wake up to ourselves, such is our nature that we shrug things off unless they are so weighty that we simply can't do so.

Yes it sucks that there are so few accounts of "I am woman, hear me roar" in mainstream popular religion, no arguement on that, but if a lack of those accounts or an excess of negative accounts leads us to be here and now debating this and gaining enlightenment, then doesn't this is some way justify these things? Do the means justify the end, no matter the sacrifices made? I honestly don't know, though I do know I've had experiences where I've been informed that "in this universe, everything is an act of love" and I take comfort in this, even though I weep for those who have no more tears to shed.

I'm still thinking about the rest of your post and how best to communicate my thoughts on it, so please forgive me for leaving it at this for the time being.
 
 
grant
18:15 / 10.04.07
That might be true for some Buddhists, but I doubt it's true for all of them. There are many different flavors....

Ah. Here: Jayarava (Western Buddhist) writing on the ordination of women.

Women, so the story goes, were admitted into the order reluctantly and then only with special pleading from Ananda on behalf of the Buddha's aunt Mahaprajapati. The admission of women, it says in the 10th chapter of the Cullavagga book of the vinaya, would be contigent on a number of conditions: they must accept a number of extra rules; have a status lower than the lowest male bhikkhu; and show all bhikkhus respect. Even so the admission of women to the Sangha is said to have shortened the lifespan of the Dharma!


but but but

I think this has been a serious sticking point for many women and not a few men approaching the Dharma! So I was intrigued when Professor Gombrich drew my attention to the verses of Bhadda [ie Bhaddaa] Kundalakesa in the Therigatha (107-111). These verses he says show that the idea that the Buddha was reluctant to admit women to the order was a later falsification.

Then he goes into what for me is some pretty interesting textual analysis, but might be kinda boring for others. The upshot is that this Jain ascetic named Bhadda was a woman who was given the traditional "higher ordination" immediately by the Buddha himself, no additional rules, no waiting period.
 
 
grant
18:15 / 10.04.07
My last to Justrix....
 
 
Quantum
18:33 / 10.04.07
Traffic lights and speed humps arn't installed unless someone gets run over, and racism in disney cartoons doesn't seem that bad until a few million people are showered with Zyklon-B; whilst its horrific that such things need to occur for us to pay attention and wake up to ourselves, such is our nature that we shrug things off unless they are so weighty that we simply can't do so.

Whoa there pickle. Let me refute you point by point. Firstly, let's split your paragraph into points,
1) Until there's a massive tragedy preventions aren't installed;
2) People blindly ignore evil until they're forced to face it.

Addressing 1) I used to work in local government, in the transport policy department, and we used to install traffic lights and speed humps. With an eye to safety. Preventing accidents rather than reacting to accident statistics. In a similar vein, Zyklon B wasn't necessary to recognise racism.
2) Loads of people are campaigning daily for issues that will hit the news in a year or so, protesting evil in all it's forms. Check out amnesty.org and then tell me "such is our nature that we shrug things off". Bollocks.
 
 
Quantum
18:37 / 10.04.07
I've had experiences where I've been informed that "in this universe, everything is an act of love"

Not to question your UPG, but that's also bollocks. I've acted out of hate, so have you, so has everyone reading these words and everyone we know. Not everything is an act of love, which is why acts of love are so valuable and easily recognisable.
 
 
This Sunday
20:54 / 10.04.07
Quantum, could you define 'hate' for me? 'Love' is, in my opinion, the best amphigory (in the Korzybskian sense) because it operates completely only on as a personal definition and perhaps very short-term, limited agreement. Hate, on the other hand, should be pretty concrete. And it shouldn't be distaste, frustration, or anger. 'Intense dislike' is the most common definition, but really, 'I hate tacos' and 'I hate Country X and its people and want them all to die boily violent flesh-melting deaths of prolonged horror and watching their bodyparts fuse in fat-bubbly fires with the flesh of their neighbors, lovers, and local videogame sales clerks,' are very different things. Whereas, I don't know that 'I love tacos' and 'I love neighbors, lovers, and local sales clerks' are that disparate. Because love isn't 'like', but perhaps something more like 'recognition of existence'.

I have a strong distaste for, say, most dishes involving squash, but I don't demand or desire squash to stop existing. I had an intense dislike for certain posts that recently found their way to Barbelith, but while I threw in for a ban (and have since rethought that), it's a ban from the board, not a desire to remove the poster or posts from totality.

What's the Leiji Matsumoto thing? You have to forgive all the time, because if you really couldn't forgive someone, you'd have to kill them... or something like that. That's hate, total inability to accept something as existing. Right?

Not everything in the world is an expression of kindness, niceness, or like, certainly.
 
 
grant
20:56 / 10.04.07
As everyone knows, the Catholic Church is perhaps the pinnacle of religious sexism, which is why it's interesting that the Vatican's Good Friday homily this year took femininity as its theme:

The preacher of the papal household, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, said in his homily that humanity was in dire need of "a woman's era: an era of the heart, of compassion" so that the earth would finally stop being a breeding ground of ferocity.

Christian women "are the hope for a more humane world" that is too caught up in a quest for knowledge and power that is lacking in love and mercy, he said.

Those who condemned Jesus to die were men, the papal preacher said, while those pious and courageous enough to accompany Christ throughout his passion were the women. Even his closest disciples had already abandoned the suffering Christ or were preparing to pack up and head for home, he added.

These and many other women today, such as those who work with the poor, prisoners, victims of HIV/AIDS, and "every brand of society's rejects," are not just for honoring, but for imitating, he urged.


This smacks of gender essentialism, yes. But the biblical notes are interesting....
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply