All religions sexists?

I think aethelfrith that christianity itself wasnt suscessfull but that like someone said that the people were and sexist. Plus during the first couple centuries of the religion woman all over the world were treated very badly so that did not help.

Namaste defender of reason,

thank you for the post.

i disagree.

there are many which are, of course.

metta,

~v

__________________
"Therefore we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's uh.. 1984? Yes, yes, that's wonderful. That would be, could be, the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence." - L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20

Declared SP - July 2001

But my point is that they weren't (well not for the time) before they converted to Christianity. In fact Goddess were very important in England during the pre-Christian era.

But again, not really. It depended on location and religion.

Although we shouldn't use sweeping generalizations, I think the original post was more about religions that grew to have large followings. If the question was "Do you think most mainstream religions are sexist?" the answer is a resounding YES. The Abrahamic faiths have a long history of promoting sexism. Crimes were punished more harshly if the offender was a woman. Women were considered "unclean" while menstrating and were seen as lesser, weak. I think this stems from a never ending patriarchy influenced by tribal society and hunter-gathering situations in our history of a species, but that's off topic. The question was about religion and sexism, not why sexism is around.

And I don't think we should especially target Abrahamic faiths. The Buddha commented that since females were allowed into the Sangha his Dharma would not last as long as it would if only men entered the monastic community. Also my Therevada Buddhism class studied how women were considered a lower form meaning being born as a women meant worse karma than being born as a male. Some would say that this was exactly because of sexism and that a woman had a harder life so it would be harder to reach enlightenment. That's a valid point but only in a religious framework, not a societal one. Hinduism also has a long history of sexism. The truth is that sexism has always been a massive part of human history. Even if certain parts of Europe or elsewhere had more equal societies I highly doubt evidence will arrise showing an actual egalitarian society in regards to gender and sex. Better? Maybe. Good? No.

I also, while considering other faiths, want to mention Wicca and Neopaganism. This faith has done much to incorportate gender equality into their beliefs. Some in that community have gone to drastic measures such as Zsuzsana Budapest with her women-born-women (no trans persons) covens and vitriolic attacks against males. However, I also think that there is sexism quite obvious in many straints of the Wicca/Neopagan/Witchcraft community. Although outlooks on deities in these paths are incredibly varied (polytheism, monism, female monotheism (Dianic Wiccans), etc.) one of the largest strains of theism, in Wicca especially, is a sort of "duotheism" where the godhead is seen as a female and male pair of forces generically refered to as the god and the goddess. Even this is drenched with heteronormative sexism. Many homosexual practitioners of Wicca have been upset by this heteronormative family image (see Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon where she talks with gay and lesbian Wiccans about the god/goddess duality). Also, in these spiritual paths the goddess image draws a lot from Graves' The White Goddess and I see a problem with this. Painting woman as some powerful, dark, chaotic and divine force is an old trick. We can fear and stand in awe of woman but can we treat her as an equal human being? Putting her on a pedestal is a bit tricky in my opinion when we talk of sexism.

As to the comment that Christianity and the figure of Jesus was somehow a giant leap forward should not even need to be refuted. Anyone can read the history of sexism in the Church. No female leaders after the time of Christ (and if you pull the Magdalene card I will definitely want some historical proof not conspiratorial conjecture) were seen. Paul even commands them to be "silent in the churches" (Corinthians) and "submit to their husbands." The whole, "But husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church" is little solace and is obviously not pro-woman or a giant leap forward. Christianity may be changing but the orthodox and largest groups of Christian communities still practice blatant sexism.

The argument that religions were (and are) sexist because people were (and are) sexist is very true. Religion is incredibly interwoven with society as a whole so I see the connection. However, I think religion did a lot to hold women back as well so it can be fair to put a bit of the blame on religion. Why didn't humanity lighten up on the sexism in many parts of the world can be traced to their religious or spiritual beliefs. Witch hunts killed far more women than men. Joan of Arc comes to mind also. Confucius telling a woman and a daughter how to behave towards husband/father comes to mind. Taoist principles of equating evil and femininity under the same yin category comes to mind. The list could go on and on. Religion (most mainstream religions at least) have done a lot to keep sexism alive.

And I feel a bit skeptical of the idea that religions have evolved and changed their sexist beliefs. I believe that the more correct way to look at it is that secularists and people outside of mainstream and orthodox faiths have done a lot to further the cause of women's equality and religion has tagged along or borrowed. Secular society after the Enlightenment is where, in my opinion, feminism developed. Also, I know that everyone can give a quote from the Buddha or the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible (albeit that one would be tough) that praises women or calls for equality but words are cheap. Faith leaders' actions in history and the influence of the religions that claim the most followers are what is important when we look at a question like this. So, yes, religion has done a lot to hold women back. That is my honest opinion.

__________________

Like your post Saint Nihilio, such a lovely display of knowledge.

I agree with much of what you said, and wanted to address some issues with some of the points you have raised.


With the issue of Mary Magdalene, I would like to know your opinion on the matter of her being a prostitute or whether she was an apostle. Many scholars of Christianity have disputed this, but I have yet to see an actual consensus.

But that is part of the reason why I'm not a Christianity, is because of the sexism. For instance, even though sexual purity is something that is important for both sexes, it always falls on the woman to be modest. I've seen this a lot within several denominations.
But anyways, Abrahamic religions are male centered, so yes there's going to be sexism.

Are you familiar with a woman named Margery Kempe? During her time, women weren't really viewed as being religious. I think people thought she was crazy, because she experienced an intense spiritual awakening. But from what I've read, people thought something was wrong with her. Had Kempe been a man, people wouldn't have held this view.

But I'm not surprised by this, women (especially in Abrahamic ones) who have been important figures have often been marginalzed, even though they had a tremendous impact on how these religions were spread.

I understand your skepitcism. That's part of the reason why feminist theologists are important to have. Obviously these religions are inherently sexist, so they're not going to change their ways, unless it is challenged. And many feminist theologists have stepped up and challenged the current system. But it's going to take awhile to change. Also, that is why many feminists turn to pagan religions, because of the importance of female deities, and such.
And as a feminist (and kind of a feminist scholar ) feminism has been around for awhile. I won't get into that here.

__________________
"Women all over the world in different backgrounds are working in ways suited to their context, and not necessarily "western feminist" ways" Shelina Zahra Janmohamed

It's not what you call me, but what I answer to.

African proverb

Namaste saint nihilio,

thank you for the post.

whist that is certainly so i think that you may not have an accurate understanding of why that was, it has more to due to culture than Dharma. nevertheless in order to mitigate the shortened time of True Dharma, before the time of Semblance Dharma, due to allowing women in the Sangha the Buddha instituted new rules for the monastic Sangha and thus women were allowed into the monastic Sangha (they were always in the non-monastic Sangha) and the duration for the True Dharma remained unchanged.

i would suggest that it is Vipaka which conditions a beings rebirth rather than Karma.. karma is what creates vipaka. nevertheless, i cannot recall any Sutta wherein the claims you are making are present. i would be more than happy to read the Sutta and research it for myself if you would tell me from which Sutta your teaching was taken.

metta,

~v

__________________
"Therefore we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's uh.. 1984? Yes, yes, that's wonderful. That would be, could be, the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence." - L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20

Declared SP - July 2001

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm glad this is actually an intelligently discussed thread. It is so refreshing.

As to the comment by Passion Fruit that Feminism has been around a long time I would agree but only if we make sure we know what we mean when we use the word "Feminism." As a student of French literature I often see people calling the Poetess Christine de Pisan "the first Feminist in Western Lit." Her small work "City of Women" (La Cite des Dames) is heralded as a first-rate example of feminist thinking. What I think most people think of when they hear the word feminism is the belief that gender and sex are not reliable in determining one's role in life and that women should be completely and utterly viewed as equal to men. I believe personally that this is an idea (and a wonderful one) that owes its birth to modern society. In ancient terms or even medieval ones we could use the term Feminist to describe someone but I think it would not have the same connotation as the modern usage of the word. But I guess this is just semantics anyway.

For my belief on Mary Magadalen, the Bible never names her a prostitute. She is equated with the prostitute in the Bible that was saved from stoning by Jesus. That prostitute is actually never named, we just assume that it is her. The Catholic Church (my old alma mater of spirituality) named her "The Penitent" and began associating her with the almost-murdered lady of ill repute. Not to be rude but in my opinion it doesn't matter because the story is fictitious. I don't go to the Bible for anything more than literary interest. Whether or not Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or a beloved apostle is irrelevant in my opinion to the mass sexism present in Christianity. Besides, if she was important she wouldn't have escaped the sexist pen of the New Testament writers anyway. (And she didn't; she dissapears from the story when the all-powerful Paul enters the picture).

As to the Buddhist question of allowing women into the monastic community, Religio-spiritual reasons for not allowing women into the monastic group do not justify the sexism. As to the idea that it had more to do with culture, I can see that and I agree. Culture and religion are inextricably linked. This, however, doesn't justify it either nor does it position Buddhism (in my personal opinion of course) up the list when it comes to treatment of women. The Buddha and his followers were, as any other religious leaders, products of their respective cultures and these cultures are predominantly patriarchial and sexist.

As to where I got the idea that women were a lesser reincarnation, it came from my professor. She did not imply that it was part of a particuliar Sutta or part of the Canon but she simply said it was a commonly held belief in Sri Lankan and Thai communities. I trust her on this matter because she did her studies for twelve years among the monks of Thailand and Sri Lanka. I know that this doesn't satisfy anything and so I will withdraw that comment for lack of physical evidence. I believed her because of her expertise but I would never be so presumptious as to demand that someone else should, I mean I could be lying (I'm not lol). But I will withdraw it from this pleasant conversation.

__________________