BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Temple >

Misogyny and Sexism in Religion

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Quantum
23:25 / 10.04.07
Quantum, could you define 'hate' for me?

To abhor, despise, detest, loathe, "Strong aversion; intense dislike; hateful regard; an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as unpleasant, harmful or evil."

If someone acts out of spite, say, how is that an act of love? Do I need to convince you of the existence of unpleasant, harmful and evil things? I'm thinking of human actions really, often driven by selfish desires, and not things I can categorise as acts of love without twisting the word beyond recognition.
 
 
ibis the being
02:00 / 11.04.07
I have to constrain my comments to Christianity, which is the only religion I feel halfway qualified to discuss right now. I was raised Baptist Christian in a very religious family, and my move away from that religion has been quite gradual. I have to disagree with grant that misogyny/sexism in religion comes from extra-religious sources, rather than anything inherent in religion itself, at least with regard to Christianity and especially the Bible. In my evolution from Christian to nonreligious agnostic, I at first tried to hold onto what I still found agreeable in the Christian Bible, but more and more I found myself explaining away passages of scripture that deeply bothered me, until the explanations simply didn't hold up anymore. I can remember that from a young age - and we always read and studied the Bible in our family, rather than receiving sermons only - I had trouble accepting scripture that contended women were subservient to men.

Right from the start:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Without going back to the original Hebrew I find it difficult to gloss over or reinterpret that scripture in a way that does not explicitly state the first woman's subservience to the first man. I can remember the way people used to explain it to me in a way that was supposed to appease me - that the woman is subservient, yet the man never exploits his role as leader and may treat her as equal - so, no harm no foul? I can't stomach it.

Another OT story that disturbed me was that of Jacob and his wives Rachel and Leah. (Briefly, Jacob hates Leah so God gives her a son while making Rachel barren. So Rachel 'gives' her servant to Jacob to bear him a son in her stead.) I realize that in this case there is a cultural element to the story - the wives' worth hinging on their production of sons for the family. However, this is not merely an historical document, it's a religious text. What are we to draw from this story spiritually? - I've never understood it.

Leviticus & Deuteronomy are appalling...

And then of course there are the scriptural passages upon which was formed my childhood religion's prohibition against female pastors:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. - 1 Timothy 2:11-12

It just goes on and on. (This is a great annotated bible site that highlights all incidents of sexism in the Bible)

It's hard to argue that sexism and misogyny are not inherent to the Bible text, at least in the form that has reached us today. I respect the idea that one can pick and choose from a religious text to utilize ideas that one finds spiritually enriching, and reject others, but I personally have never been able to do that. I find it impossible to ignore those offensive scriptures and convince myself that they can be divorced from the parts I like, such as, say, the Sermon on the Mount. In the end, I've had to personally reject the Bible, and without the religious text I find little to retain from Christianity either.
 
 
This Sunday
03:43 / 11.04.07
To re-explain and open it up to everyone here: Where do you draw that 'intense' line in 'instense dislike' and do you consider 'like' and 'love' to have a parallel relationship? If the answer to the last part is 'yes', then I think there's clearly no way to sell the 'it's all out of love', but if the answer's 'no' or the 'intense'
or 'strong' don't have solid measurement, then I'd say there's wiggle room.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
11:08 / 11.04.07
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.

Though was that eye developed from foresight, or hindsight? How many accidents had to occur before the need for a transport policy department was recognised? The holocaust wasn't necessary to recognize racism, though it was to reveal just how horrific things could get if humans were denied their humanity. Experience is a hard school from which to learn, but most will learn from no other until they've had enough experience to gain non-experiential knowledge; I don't need to be shot to know it's a bad thing however if I didn't have any experience of pain or guns, than I would.

Check out amnesty.org and then tell me "such is our nature that we shrug things off". Bollocks.

If you're going to quote me, please do so in context. I added a qualitative point to my statement that you did not, "unless they are so weighty that we simply can't do so", and a cursory view of amnesty.org shows issues such as gun control, violence against women, and humans rights abuses, as being things that haven't been shrugged off because they're so weighty, yet issues such as stepping on cockroaches as having no weight whatsoever.

Not everything is an act of love, which is why acts of love are so valuable and easily recognisable.

UPG stands for unique personal growth? If so than my UPG has involved experiences as stated, and whether or not you find their content to be bollocks or not is irrelevant to my having them. This particular one involves a rather wider view than I usually deal with, where an act of suffering leads to the development of compassion which leads to love, and so suffering is allowed to occur so that this progression can be made; it might be bollocks, but as I said earlier, I still take comfort in it as it helps me to recognise how some things could be considered an act of (tough) love.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
11:38 / 11.04.07
This is not just one religion, it is all major religions across the world! Justrix

Whilst Taoism is "difficult to isolate as a large, independent religion from a statistical and sociological perspective" it can still be considered a major religion.

Taoism offers Chinese women a spiritually equal role states: -
Hidden in misunderstanding and obscurity, the religion and philosophy of Taoism offers a refreshing change from the more traditional views of women. Taoism originated in ancient China, and stemmed from shamanistic practices, ritual and myth. It was officially founded by the man Lao Tzu in the sixth century B.C.E.

Taoists believe that happiness and peaceful coexistence can be achieved by following what they call The Tao, also known as The Way. The Tao is a concept that cannot be fully understood; it is the mysterious way of nature that is inherently female, acting as a mother to all things. The fundamental basis of this religion is built upon the supreme power of the female for creation and enlightened understanding. Therefore, it is no surprise that women are treated with reverence and respect.
 
 
Papess
12:14 / 11.04.07
Grant: There are accounts of female spiritual leaders in Buddhism and other religions. I suppose I am just wondering why the accounts of the methods employed by those women leaders are limited due to prejudice. For example, why is it that their surrender to rape is considered to be an act of enlightenment, whereas a woman defending herself isn't. Or why wouldn't there also be accounts of a males having attained enlightenment in this manner, or submitting to rape (as we know, men have been raped throughout history). Do people think that perhaps, if there were accounts, maybe they would have different values placed upon them? My problem is what religions value in women, or not value, as the case may be.

....and this to Mako too:
While all religions seem to claim equality, the practices employed by religions are still sexist. I believe taoism is too, (I haven't read much, but I seem to recall the same gender roles and stereotypes as every other religion, at least enforced in sexual practices.). What is actually valued in women is largely a role that is defined by prejudice. The problem with having female role models within the(se) current system(s) that condone sexism and misogyny is that, if those women could achieve enlightenment (or whatever recognized status within the church), then every woman should be able to also under the current regime. Therefore, the doctrine is considered viable, and the methods and values are justified.

Ibis: Thank you for that annotated bible site. The bible really puts me off as well. In fact, I would say that reading it as a child actually hurt my self-esteem.
 
 
Quantum
13:13 / 11.04.07
Experience is a hard school from which to learn, but most will learn from no other until they've had enough experience to gain non-experiential knowledge

Why do we send kids to actual real live school then? You can gain non-experiential knowledge before you can speak.

UPG= Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis, like your experience when you were informed that "in this universe, everything is an act of love". My problem is that in my opinion love is a nebulous concept and is not the opposite of hate. If you were Greek, the entity might have used any one of a a variety of words that we translate as 'Love', like Eros (passionate love) or Storge (familial affection). See Decrescent's attempts to define love and hate, unfortunately English is a rather impoverished language for discussing emotions which is why we resort to metaphor so much.

I understand you're trying to say sometimes you've just gotta let someone make mistakes so they'll learn how not to make them but I find that a patronising position, and I'm a bit worried about some things you've said like;

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.

and

I think you're viewing it from a standpoint that rape is wrong and there is nothing that can justify it.

You seem to be saying that the suffering of women now is all for the greater good, but have you considered most women don't want to be Emily Davison? I'm just a bit concerned, please reassure me you're not saying sexism and misogyny are necessary evils women have to toil through.
Especially in religion, where there has been a long history of oppression and suffering, it seems unfair to suggest women should just wait a bit longer until men realise their mistakes. I'd also like to defend the position that *rape is wrong* and there is nothing that can justify it, it seems obviously and self-evidently true to me.
 
 
Papess
14:03 / 11.04.07
On Daoism:

Women as much as men are required to continue the family line, serve their parents and their communities, and are not free to leave at will. Men in classical hagiographies, unless they are younger sons and let go more easily, tend to marry and produce offspring, then leave their wives and children. Women, too, in most cases are widowed when they enter the religious path. If they wish to leave at a younger age, they have a more difficult time, needing to resist the pressures of marriage and gain as much control over their lives as possible. *Often this happens with the help of radical fasting, food being one area where they can exert control (Waltner 1987, 123)*. The gods, favoring the girl's actions help by giving her the ability to survive without nourishment, causing the parents to face unbending resistance and the potential danger of losing their daughter to emaciation. They eventually give in, some gracefully, some with great reluctance.

From this paper: "Are Women in Daoism Different From Women in Chinese Society?".

That part I put in italics and asterisked really caught my attention. I need to just absorb the implications of that for a few minutes.
 
 
Papess
12:17 / 12.04.07


Also from the link above:

The contact of Daoists with women was therefore circumscribed but not paranoid, the rules of Daoists for women were in no way excessive beyond those of men, and, most importantly, nowhere do Daoist texts denounce women as lascivious and evil. Why is this? Why such misogyny in Buddhism?and Christianity or Islam? Why not in Daoism? The answer lies in the understanding of the body, and particulary of men?s sexuality, in these different traditions. While in India and the West the body is seen as an obstacle to salvation and the purity of the soul, and sexuality is the most pronounced and hardest to tame force within the body, in Daoism the body is the basis for transformation, and sexual energy is highly valued as the one form of qi that can be actively aroused and consciously felt at the beginning of the path. Thus celibacy in Daoism was predicated on the retention, inner circulation, and refinement of jing or ?essence,? an the avoidance of sexual intercourse was not to subdue the body but, on the contrary, to enhance its inner strength and cosmic connection (Eskildsen 1998, 67).

Daoism certainly is in the lead for equality. My only exposure to it, is from Mantak Chia, years ago.

So, what I am surmising is that generally, major religions are quite tainted by the cultures in which they flourish; much in the same way that Buddhism is currently being influenced and shaped by North American culture. For example, the changing of scriptures to be gender-neutral and the non-segregation of women.

I find it interesting that the quote above suggests that it is the denouncing the human body as impure which causes the misogynistic attitudes of many other religions. It suggests that it is not actual hatred of women, but of the own bodies' urges, which cause a schism in the spiritual relationship between genders. Still, I don't see an accounting for gay men. Perhaps, men should be kept from each other, as well? Of course, that is about as ridiculous as keeping men and women apart, imho. If religions figureheads were to get real, they would have accounted for this, if their intention is simply to eliminate desire and not women.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
13:15 / 12.04.07
Why do we send kids to actual real live school then? You can gain non-experiential knowledge before you can speak.

I’m defining non-experiential knowledge as being the result of direct experiences such as the experience of our own environment, and indirect experience such as someone describing their environment, the combination of which leads to abilities of reasoning and imagination such as that everyone has an environment. Children are sent to school because they’ve had enough direct experiences such as language and sense of self to be able to gain the kind of indirect experiences that school can teach them, and this is acknowledged through a curriculum based on what they have previously learnt; pre-schoolers aren’t taught calculus just as high-schoolers aren’t taught base ten. My point that people don’t give full weight to consequences is based on this, because without experience the weight of an issue or its consequences are not fully realized, and so preventative or curative measures cannot be put in place as their necessity is not realized.

You seem to be saying that the suffering of women now is all for the greater good

No, I’m saying that from certain points of views that I’ve experienced, which I agree are questionable, this is the case, just as from certain points of view that you (and I) have experienced, rape is wrong; perhaps the validity of these subjective truths are dependant on consensus approval, however if this is the case then acts of misogyny and sexism are alright as billions of people follow religions that condone them.

please reassure me you're not saying sexism and misogyny are necessary evils women have to toil through

I’m curious about why you want reassurance in the first place, but unfortunately this is something that I cannot provide you with; sexism and misogyny are present in humanity and to overcome them they must be indeed be toiled through until such time as they are no longer present, and are necessary in the sense that they help to define what humanity currently is. I’m not saying that a redefinition isn’t possible or that it wouldn’t be for the better, or that humanity should grin and bare it until such time as it occurs, but I am saying that unless cause and effect no longer applies than the current state of effect is needed to generate the causes that will allow others to occur.

it seems unfair to suggest women should just wait a bit longer until men realise their mistakes

I don’t think I’m suggesting women should do anything of the sort, and I’m certainly not suggesting the world is fair in the first place. What I am suggesting is that the world is as it is and this should be accepted, but acceptance does not mean that it cannot be changed or that it is wrong to try; I’m suggesting that sometimes to gain control, it is necessary to submit in order to understand, and that understanding includes an awareness of what forces are needed to enact change.

Justrix thanks for the website on Toaism; maybe misogyny and sexism in religion is due to the difficulty of practicing what is preached, and is less a case of divinity than dogma. I was recently in communication with a man who knew Mantuk Chia decades ago, and he stated something along the lines of "Chia just has no concept of water" in a discussion about my attempts to consolidate greek and chinese elemental theory; water in both is very feminine and I respect his opinion greatly, so I suggest you look further than Mantuk Chia in regards to gender equality in Taoism.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:19 / 12.04.07
Justrix

Still, I don't see an accounting for gay men. Perhaps, men should be kept from each other, as well?

Well China has a long history of same-sex relations recorded from as early as the Shang period (16th-11th century BCE) with several emperors known to have had male lovers (NB: relationships between women are less well-documented, but nonetheless, present in the literature). A popular Chinese euphemism for homosexuality - "the passion of the cut sleeve" comes from the story of the Han Emperor Ai, who cut the sleeve off his robe to avoid disturbing a sleeping lover. As far as I can recall, sodomy was not criminalised until the sixteenth century (and not for "religious" reasons). But all this is dealt with in Brett Hinsch's book Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China - some selections here. Bernard Faure's The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality might also be worth a look at too.
 
 
Quantum
14:15 / 12.04.07
Mako. I am genuinely confused by your posting. When you say
I’m defining non-experiential knowledge as being the result of direct experiences it makes me think I've gone mad, or you've mistyped and added an extra 'non' to your sentence, or your point is very abstract, or you don't know what experiential means. Experiential knowledge is usually knowledge derived from direct experience (thus experiential) and non-experiential knowledge is usually stuff you've learnt second hand, so kind of the exact opposite of the way you're defining the terms.

I am saying that unless cause and effect no longer applies than the current state of effect is needed to generate the causes that will allow others to occur.

Here again, you seem to have reversed cause and effect. If I'm being obtuse please forgive me, and if you're typing in your second language then my apologies, but I hope you can see why I'm having trouble grasping your meaning.

Like here when you say I’m suggesting that sometimes to gain control, it is necessary to submit in order to understand which makes a kind of sense, in a jui-jitsu or taoist sort of way, but also seems to me to suggest that women should submit in order to understand? I just don't want to accuse you of paternalist rhetoric if I'm misunderstanding. I'm also wary of rotting the thread- someone do say if I'm getting tedious...
 
 
Papess
14:37 / 12.04.07
but also seems to me to suggest that women should submit in order to understand? I just don't want to accuse you of paternalist rhetoric if I'm misunderstanding. I'm also wary of rotting the thread- someone do say if I'm getting tedious...

Not at all, Quantum. This is part of what is bothering me, that submitting to rape, and submitting to men in general, is considered to be pious for a woman, whereas the reverse is not true. Men only have to submit to their god and/or doctrine. Possibly to other men, as well, but never, ever to a mere woman! (Please note sarcasm)

Thank you for those links Trouser. I will give them a read in a bit.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
14:57 / 12.04.07
It's getting tedious for me; I'll concede the point on the semantics of the term experience because of this, state that a cause leads to an effect and that that effect is the cause of another effect, and leave my suggestion as it stands without a normative statement about whether or not women should submit more than they already have.
 
 
Papess
15:45 / 12.04.07
Mako, it is really necessary to have precision, and non-biased language. It is really hard to expound feminist ideology with patriarchal terms, right? Although not patriarchal, "non-experience" wasn't clear to me either. I think you mean intimate experiences, but I am not sure.

I do agree with this:

...sexism and misogyny are present in humanity and to overcome them they must be indeed be toiled through until such time as they are no longer present,...

But I don't agree entirely with this:

...and are necessary in the sense that they help to define what humanity currently is.

It seems so "chicken and egg" when you put it that way. I mean, didn't we create the current injustices due to our definitions in the first place?
 
 
grant
19:29 / 12.04.07
Justrix: The bible really puts me off as well. In fact, I would say that reading it as a child actually hurt my self-esteem.

There's misogyny in the Bible, but there's also Judith, Ruth and Esther. I link that last because you might get a kick out that story. Scholars make a pretty good case that it's not an actual history, but a "Judaizing" of a Babylonian legend about Ishtar and Marduk. (In the book, it's beautiful Esther and her pious uncle Mordecai.)

I'm also not convinced about men never submitting to women -- the Mother Superior of a convent would be referred to as Mother by anyone, male or female (like Mother Teresa). And, well, there's the aforementioned Judith. Judith and parts of Esther might not have been in the Bible you read; they're deuterocanonical texts (short definition: Protestants don't rank 'em).

I don't think the attitudes toward women are unitary -- the Bible is a tricky text that way. It's not a book but a collection of books.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
11:22 / 13.04.07
It seems so "chicken and egg" when you put it that way. I mean, didn't we create the current injustices due to our definitions in the first place?

Yes, though arguably those definitions sprung up from man gaining the upper hand over women and then taking it to excess, and then making the definitions i.e we didn't define man as man and woman as woman until we noticed a difference. What I was getting at though was that mysogyny and sexism are necessary to define mankinds current state, just as penis and vagina are needed to biologically define gender; you can decide not to mention them in your description, but you're not going to paint the full picture if you do.
 
 
Papess
13:49 / 13.04.07
grant:I'm also not convinced about men never submitting to women -- the Mother Superior of a convent would be referred to as Mother by anyone, male or female (like Mother Teresa).

But, but, but!...I believe, (although I am not positive), that a Mother Superior is still subordinate to a Priest. Not to mention...God the Father Almighty!

Also, I have mentioned already, that I recognize there are quite a number of accomplished female practitioners in various faiths. They often appear as "exceptions", unlike their male counterparts, who are perceived as exceptional. Women are considered less than men in a given doctrine. Yet, the bar is set higher for her to be considered accomplished than is for men. Thus, fewer examples, perhaps? Plus, I have to wonder whether that leaves the spiritual accomplishments of men a little mediocre. I am just wondering, not stating, btw.


Mako: What I was getting at though was that mysogyny and sexism are necessary to define mankinds current state,...

Mako, I am not slamming you here, but I would like it if you phrase these things properly and use gender-neutral terms, or else it becomes difficult to accept with such contradiction between context and language. Use of the word "mankind" in this context is confusing me about your intent. Are you saying these words are necessary to define humankind's current state? Are you saying that sexism and misogyny are the expression of our current collective spiritual state?

...just as penis and vagina are needed to biologically define gender; you can decide not to mention them in your description, but you're not going to paint the full picture if you do.

To address what you are trying to say: You can only define what is there. If sexism and misogyny were nonexistent, then there would be no need to define such things. To say that defining sexism and misogyny is comparable to defining males and females, is a bit unfounded. It reads to me like you believe that sexism and misogyny are inherent in our biological make-up.
 
 
Papess
14:08 / 13.04.07
To say that defining sexism and misogyny is comparable to defining males and females,

That should read: To say that defining sexism and misogyny is comparable to defining penises and vaginae,...
 
 
Quantum
14:52 / 13.04.07
It's getting tedious for me; I'll concede the point on the semantics of the term experience

It's getting tedious for me too. You know that semantics means meaning? When you 'concede the point', do you mean that by non-experiential you meant experiential?
 
 
EvskiG
15:35 / 13.04.07
There's misogyny in the Bible, but there's also Judith, Ruth and Esther.

Just thought I'd point out that Esther's husband supposedly was Xerxes, who people recently might have seen in the movie 300.

No battle rhinos in the Book of Esther, though. Too bad.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
16:13 / 13.04.07
Are you saying these words are necessary to define humankind's current state?

Yes, so long as there are meanings attached to the words.

Are you saying that sexism and misogyny are the expression of our current collective spiritual state?

Not "the" expression but "a" expression which contibutes to the current version of the collective, whose contribution cannot be denied.

If sexism and misogyny were nonexistent, then there would be no need to define such things.

There might be the need or desire to define them in a theoretical sense.

To say that defining sexism and misogyny is comparable to defining males and females, is a bit unfounded.

Did I do that? I thought I compared how the inclusion of sexism and misogyny was necessary to define the current state of humanity, just as the inclusion of *insert something that contributes to a collective state* is necessary to define *the collective state being defined*.

It reads to me like you believe that sexism and misogyny are inherent in our biological make-up

No, but that would be an interesting idea to explore; there are plenty of examples throughout mankinds history (sorry... humankinds theirstory) that gives evidence towards this.

When you 'concede the point', do you mean that by non-experiential you meant experiential?

No, I mean that a battle should only be fought if one is able to win it and if it's worth fighting; being pedantic about semantics isn't a battle that's worth fighting. I didn't mean experiential when I used the term non-experiential, however I'm happy to use your meaning in relation to the points I made; whilst we may disagree on what the words themselves mean, we agree on the meaning of the concepts that we each attach to the words.
 
 
Papess
16:59 / 13.04.07
I think you are going in circles Mako.

There might be the need or desire to define them in a theoretical sense.

Why? Even theory has a basis in fact. Besides, we are not talking about theories of the possibility of misogyny. Misogyny exists. I'd like to discuss that. I don't know if speculating that the theory of misogyny would have been conceptualized anyway - whether it exists presently, or not - is terribly helpful to the discussion. It does exist and I feel like I am chasing my tail explaining this.

When I speak of these things, Mako, I am not talking about *takes deep breath*...theories. So to speculate on whether the term would exist without the condition, is really rather a mute point.
 
 
grant
18:32 / 13.04.07
Justrix: ut, but, but!...I believe, (although I am not positive), that a Mother Superior is still subordinate to a Priest. Not to mention...God the Father Almighty!

I thiink in the hierarchy, a nun = a monk (sister=brother) and they're both less authoritative than a priest. However, . On the other hand, the King of Sweden should still be calling the woman "mother."

I'm not sure exactly what "subordinate" means, though, since priests wouldn't be giving orders to nuns as part of their ecclesiastical duties anyway.

Also, I have mentioned already, that I recognize there are quite a number of accomplished female practitioners in various faiths. They often appear as "exceptions", unlike their male counterparts, who are perceived as exceptional.

I'm not positive I buy that. Thinking of the various St. Teresas & Joan of Arc, and so on. In Christianity, this is vexed by "exceptional" often translating into hideous martyrdom & poverty.

Ev G: No battle rhinos in the Book of Esther, though. Too bad.

There are battle elephants in the next book, though -- 1 Maccabees. Or maybe 2 Maccabees.
 
 
Quantum
02:27 / 14.04.07
It reads to me like you believe that sexism and misogyny are inherent in our biological make-up
No, but that would be an interesting idea to explore; there are plenty of examples throughout mankinds history (sorry... humankinds theirstory) that gives evidence towards this.

Like what? That's a pretty contentious statement.

being pedantic about semantics isn't a battle that's worth fighting.

You're right. But I actually don't understand much of what you're saying. So I'm going to disengage rather than get even more frustrated. Goodbye.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
13:32 / 14.04.07
Why? Even theory has a basis in fact

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that you’re asking me why someone would propose a theory; you’re asking me to theorize about why someone would theorize, because you want to know what it would be like to be someone in a theoretical world with something we don’t have, who wants to know what it would be like to live in a theoretical world with something they don’t have. You’re asking me to do so after stating that something can only be defined if it’s there, and that if it were nonexistent than there would be no need to define it; you’re asking me to define the nonexistent motivations of a nonexistent person in a nonexistent world, because it’s needed for you to satiate your desire for understanding.

Honestly?... I just can’t be bothered explaining why. Sorry.

Misogyny exists. I'd like to discuss that.

I’ve discussed how misogyny and sexism exist and are an integral part of the current human condition, three times (four if you count this statement), and that whilst it is necessary to mention this existence and the role it has played, its existence may not actually be necessary: -

1) …sexism and misogyny are present in humanity and… are necessary in the sense that they help to define what humanity currently is. I’m not saying that a redefinition isn’t possible or that it wouldn’t be for the better…
2) …mysogyny and sexism are necessary to define mankinds current state… you can decide not to mention them in your description, but you're not going to paint the full picture if you do.
3) Are you saying these words are necessary to define humankind's current state?

Yes, so long as there are meanings attached to the words.

Are you saying that sexism and misogyny are the expression of our current collective spiritual state?

Not "the" expression but "a" expression which contibutes to the current version of the collective, whose contribution cannot be denied.


It does exist and I feel like I am chasing my tail explaining this.

Join the club, we have cake.
 
 
Papess
11:56 / 16.04.07
I'm not sure exactly what "subordinate" means, though, since priests wouldn't be giving orders to nuns as part of their ecclesiastical duties anyway.

Not entirely certain, but I think that there are priests who are assigned to give nuns their services and counsel them. Also, just because a King has to call the Mother Superior "mother", is not where the sexism lies. Within the hierarchy of the church, the men and their male god still rule over the Mother Superior. A priest, I believe, still outranks her.

One thing that I take issue with in various religions, is the token empowerment of a minority women being held as equanimity, (not saying you are doing this Grant!). Especially, when the doctrines these women followed are inherently sexist. It creates conflict for me as a woman. So, are those exceptional women accepting of the sexism? Is that my example? Should I accept it too, in order to emulate them? My experience is that these fewer examples of women than men is used as a pacifier; handpicked exceptions who lack defiance of oppressive doctrine - in fact, they beg the men to be allowed to learn it.

I am getting more confused as I write.
 
 
grant
15:49 / 16.04.07
Within the hierarchy of the church, the men and their male god still rule over the Mother Superior. A priest, I believe, still outranks her.

Actually, what I'm saying is precisely that a priest doesn't -- in any meaningful way, the priest is in an entirely different hierarchy than a nun. The priest is part of the apostolic succession, the nun isn't (and monks aren't either, except those that are priests as well as monks). Nuns and monks are contemplatives.

The fact that women are *excluded* from succession is significant, but I believe there are nuns serving within various offices in the Vatican (including serving as Vatican webmaster - the Vatican uses Linux), and ordinary parish priests in Dubuque and Dubai would probably do well to please those nuns.

It's a bit like saying an army officer outranks a politician. A mayor might be wowed by a major, but the major should probably be wowed by a senator.


One thing that I take issue with in various religions, is the token empowerment of a minority women being held as equanimity, (not saying you are doing this Grant!).

I'm not certain this dynamic isn't exactly what's present in contemporary Catholicism. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was so publicly part of the cult of Our Lady of Fatima that he gave a lot of strength to the co-redemptrix theologians (go women!), but he also gave some unequivocal statements about women being unsuitable for ordination (keep gurls owt!).
 
 
This Sunday
15:50 / 16.04.07
I think emulating/honoring someone for everything, is a bad idea in general. Just about everybody's got their mistakes or concessions. No point in lionizing those.

I'm just thinking, lately, about things that are gender-related but not necessarily sexist. We, Tsalagi, used to have a pretty healthy fear of Shawnee women wearing lipstick. Which, on its own, could be considered some sexophobic issue, except that, well, they used to have a habit of putting on lipstick post-combat and eating their kills. Some great psychological warfare there, but I'd hesitate to call it sexist in the normally-accepted usage.

I do know that my reflexive breakdowns of gender are actually more racist than anything else. Because as far back as I can remember, the idea was that the docile, content-to-be-shat-upon woman subservient to her big-stand-up male provider was what white, and other eastern hemisphere-descended, women were like. Now, whether someone put that in my head as a little kid or I developed the notion on my skewed own, it took a long time to shed.

Because that's who I saw under that and apparently happy with it. I could look at my own relatives or ancestors, and it wasn't flying. Except perhaps on the white/married-out sidetangles. Beulah Benton Edmondson Croker wasn't taking this shit. My mom or my great-auntie Lucy weren't.

Even in some very male-skewed tribes, it just wasn't what you saw if you went to town and looked at the eastern hemisphere folks. My auntie Lucy was a trained and proper pilot in WW2, and while it took the government and marketing awhile to admit it, we all knew. And we knew she was tough as hell, that her and her long-term partner ran cattle and would on their own until age won out. Age.

My mom was involved in WARM, she'd jump down somebody's throat in the middle of a meal in a restaurant if she felt justified and was doing it to keep someone else from having to sit and take shit.

These examples aren't to lionize or validate anyone, but to demonstrate why it seemed like the non-Native women who smiled through just insulting male behaviour, who seemed to cheerily move through degrading BS at all times public, were... well, I thought they had to actually be satisfied with it.

As a kid, that's what you judge from, though, if it's outside family: appearance. And it took some time before I properly realized that sometimes, people are just putting on appearances. The capitulation to inane inferiority-insistences, was not necessarily one of these, but, being happy with it often was.

Even being male, I was a mixed-blood, light-skinned Indian - one of the few groups of people on the planet who get routinely ignored in those genetic breakdowns or social demonstrations, unless they put some paper feathers on some kids head in third grade - so I was already set to be lower than dirt what we considered the eyes of the world. The cards were stacked against, and we were, men and women, in it together.

Because women can kill men just as quick as men can kill anything. Because, fundamentally, women are dangerous. Like men are dangerous. And just as useful to getting things done. Just as competent. And I was just raised - and never tried to shake off - that anyone expecting any different should be disappointed. Competency was real big in my family, and presuming incompetence always feels wrong. More now than when I was a kid, but, y'know, kids! Kids is bigoted. Adults ought to've grown up a little.
 
 
grant
15:55 / 16.04.07
What's also very vexing in Christianity (and I'd imagine in Islam) is that submission to authority is central to the ideology. Humility and subservience are the ultimate ideals supposed to be embodied by the clerics and faithful.

I'm not sure you can have a religion without humility -- it's certainly a universal virtue -- but it's really encoded in Christ's message over and over. Obey. Be meek. Turn the other cheek. From what I've read of the Quran, it's true there as well, but I can't claim to be nearly as familiar with that faith.
 
 
This Sunday
16:09 / 16.04.07
It's there in the Koran, too. Really, I find the Koran to be very useful as a model for contracts, in general, since it's very clearly put forth, but contains genuinely witty loopholes for everything under the sun while insisting the rules be strictly observed.

That subservience, that I'm not worthy, was something I used to think was purely a racist/culturalist reading, but more and more I'm deciding its true. Clearly not everyone was brought up believing that individual decisions and responsibility were paramount. There is a lot of that sublimate for the cause and obey obey obey stuff that simply doesn't seem dignified. And yes, some of that comes down as being misogynist, but really, just as much comes down as being indignity of a misandrist sort. Whether you're pulling for the Holy Allfather and His Boy or calmly rolling the pig's knuckles for Cult of the Virgin Ishtar in her blue-wrap and a moon, the idea that one should submit, submit, and otherwise act in a way disrespectful to their capacity as a human being, because it's the law, the way, and there's a plan always seems a little damaged.

Anybody have the whole submission thing really work for them? Not in a Kathy Acker and then they all want to fuck us way, but as a totally fulfilling lifestyle? Anybody feel that they are precisely what their religion or culture defines as the quintessence of their gender or social position? That's the angle I want to hear from most, is the folks who aren't having a problem. And if there aren't any... um...
 
 
Ticker
16:25 / 16.04.07
Because women can kill men just as quick as men can kill anything. Because, fundamentally, women are dangerous. Like men are dangerous. And just as useful to getting things done. Just as competent. And I was just raised - and never tried to shake off - that anyone expecting any different should be disappointed.

This statement is creating a warm fuzzy in XK-land.

Anybody feel that they are precisely what their religion or culture defines as the quintessence of their gender or social position? That's the angle I want to hear from most, is the folks who aren't having a problem.

I'd be surprised if they were such people on the board but there's a metric fuckton of sites on the net supposedly for these folks. These seem like happy folk content in their ID but hey, we'd have to ask them really to know for certain.
 
 
Papess
17:07 / 16.04.07
I feel like my point is being lost here.
 
 
Saturn's nod
18:02 / 16.04.07
I want to argue with you grant about the subservience being crucial to Christianity, I'm along with Walter Wink's theological take on that: Christ as nonviolent resister, using Rene Girard's ideas about scapegoating etc: google up Walter Wink and "turn the other cheek" for the lesson from cultural study in relation to scripture. Here's someone's sermon from Wink's books, similar to the way it was taught to me early on in my studies amongst Quakers, (skip down two thirds or (Firefox Ctrl-F to 'Gospel of Matthew' if it looks too long).

I'm not Catholic but my impression was that all sisters are vowed to obedience, which means they have to obey the hierarchy of priests. So yes, in that strand of Christianity, women religious are subservient. But I don't see it as essential to Christian life; if I did I wouldn't be happy at church, just like I have to hang out at non-homophobic churches. So at least to me, it's not okay and represents a fairly basic misreading of the idea of a loving God.

Justrix, to return to your point about the commonality across religions, I wonder whether it's not specific to religions but just a tendency in insitutions more generally. Jack Holland's popular history of misogyny 'Misogyny, the world's oldest prejudice' (Robinson, London, 2006) puts hatred of adornment along with insistence on controlling women's sexual and reproductive activity as a common theme through all totalitarian regimes.

Walter Wink writes about institutions as having spiritualities, he takes this as one of the meanings of 'angel' in scripture. He suggests all institutions are set up with good purposes in mind; that the tendency of humans in insititutions is to forget and become self serving at which point the institution becomes demonic; and that the role and purpose of reformers is to recall institutions to their divine calling.

That comes very much from within the protestant Christian tradition: understanding that the institutions of Christianity can be corrupted, just as the references to the "beast speaking with the voice of the lamb" in Revelation might suggest.

Hence ancient religious institutions can be seems as merely no less likely than other sorts of institutions to resist the tendency to take our eye off the ball and fail to live our the imperative towards peace and justice, and that's why most end up enshrining sexism?
 
 
grant
19:06 / 16.04.07
I want to argue with you grant about the subservience being crucial to Christianity, I'm along with Walter Wink's theological take on that: Christ as nonviolent resister,

I think the "non-violent" part of that is deeply rooted in submission. Although it gets slippery -- satyagraha is based on "vindication of truth not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one’s self." This could be argued to be both submissive and non-submissive at the same time.

I'll have to read more Wink to be sure what all's implied here, so more later.

I'm not Catholic but my impression was that all sisters are vowed to obedience, which means they have to obey the hierarchy of priests.

Nope. Monastic vows are strictly within the order -- the "obedience" is to the mother superior, abbess or whoever is in charge of the community.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply