Sexism and Religion

[awitch]

I don't think anyone is saying that male and females don't have biological differences, or that women are superior to men, or that humans are superior to any deity.

 

[chris.j.b]

Well Jane, isn't it interesting that all cultures, from east to west during the "agrarian" period had the exact same beliefs about roles of women, which you apparently think is mistaken. Despite the fact those cultures weren't influencing each other.

Now apparently you are pointing out that our current, highly industrialised, highly politically correct culture at its core isn't different either because when we look hard, our Lego sets are highly gender specific.

Not to mention scientific studies that show that children will gravitate to gender role toys even when uninfluenced by parents.

Could it be then, that it is not these religions that need to conform to some highly recent feminist theories, but rather than some fancy new theories are just a passing fad?

 

[redleghunter]

The question I have is if religions are basically sexist to the detriment of females why are there so many more woman than men that attend worship services in Christian churches? I have no knowledge of the other religions' demographic break downs so I do not know if this is a universal phenomenon or only a Christian thing but it seems to me that, at least in Christianity, women tend to be more interested in participating in religious practices than men. Thus my question. As it would seem to be that the opposite ought to be true that the ones benefiting from the sexism ought to be the more enthusiast supporters while the ones being oppressed by it ought to be running away from it I am curious to know what everyone thinks the reason why the current the situation that exists differs from what one would expect.

Well constructed proposition. I think the answer is that most Christian churches are not oppressive to women; add to that that most Christian women do not see following Christ oppressive.

For heavens sake we are not Muslims forcing women and children to be Muslim or face an honor killing. Perhaps our OP should be visiting a Muslim site to get her answers first.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think anyone is saying that male and females don't have biological differences, or that women are superior to men, or that humans are superior to any deity.

I suppose there is a problem when you add in some religious ideas. Take my faith, for example. If we were to rebuild the Temple, only men could be priests. It's setup in the Torah and it isn't something that can be changed without deciding that part of the Torah is wrong. Priests are though direct male line descent from Aaron as all tribe status type things are passed down the male line. We can argue if this is sexist or not, but it isn't something that Orthodox Jews would be willing to budge on (both male and female).

 

[LoAmmi]

Well Jane, isn't it interesting that all cultures, from east to west during the "agrarian" period had the exact same beliefs about roles of women, which you apparently think is mistaken. Despite the fact those cultures weren't influencing each other.

When it comes down to the idea that women raise the children and men perform the work in an agrarian society, it took hold because it is what was necessary. Men don't get pregnant and they don't produce milk, so in a place where the work outside was difficult work dependent on strength and something like pregnancy would severely limit the amount of work that could be done, men were going to do it while women would be taking care of the children and babies. They were the only ones who could nurse a baby, after all. It's a byproduct of a time in human history where such roles weren't even something defined, they just were.

We live in a time where these things are no longer necessary and we can move past them.

 

[chris.j.b]

Yes, male athletes will outcompete female athletes - just as African athletes will fare better than Caucasian ones in certain disciplines. Does that merit the kind of fundamental distinction we see in far too many places? Of course not.

When it comes down to the idea that women raise the children and men perform the work in an agrarian society, it took hold because it is what was necessary. Men don't get pregnant and they don't produce milk, so in a place where the work outside was difficult work dependent on strength and something like pregnancy would severely limit the amount of work that could be done, men were going to do it while women would be taking care of the children and babies. They were the only ones who could nurse a baby, after all. It's a byproduct of a time in human history where such roles weren't even something defined, they just were.

We live in a time where these things are no longer necessary and we can move past them.

Why, are men getting pregnant now and producing milk? I should watch the news more often. And difficult outdoor work has ceased has it?

Was all work back in the agrarian period difficult and dependant on strength? Women lay around on couches eating grapes, while men toiled, is that the ancient way?

 

[LoAmmi]

Why, are men getting pregnant now and producing milk? I should watch the news more often. And difficult outdoor work has ceased has it?

I sit at a computer at my job and fix network servers. There is nothing I do where being a man is an advantage. A pregnant woman would have no problems performing this job up until the point she went into labor. We also have daycares and such today that allow parents to pay for someone else to watch their children while they work. And schools when the children are old enough. There is no longer a necessity for someone to be at home all the time to watch young children.

Outdoor work has gotten significantly easier with the advent of modern technology. Even still, though, the majority of workers like that are men.

Was all work back in the agrarian period difficult and dependant on strength? Women lay around on couches eating grapes, while men toiled, is that the ancient way?

Going to take a guess that you don't have any children.

 

[chris.j.b]

I sit at a computer at my job and fix network servers. There is nothing I do where being a man is an advantage. A pregnant woman would have no problems performing this job up until the point she went into labor. We also have daycares and such today that allow parents to pay for someone else to watch their children while they work. And schools when the children are old enough. There is no longer a necessity for someone to be at home all the time to watch young children.

Outdoor work has gotten significantly easier with the advent of modern technology. Even still, though, the majority of workers like that are men.

Uh huh. And there were jobs in the agrarian period that both men and women did. So how is that a difference between the ancients and us?

BTW, when you go into labor, will you finally then put your screwdriver down? Would your network server repairing husband need to put it down too? Or could it be there is at least 1 advantage in being male in doing this job? Might we find more if we look harder?

 

[LoAmmi]

Uh huh. And there were jobs in the agrarian period that both men and women did. So how is that a difference between the ancients and us?

I'm discussing the common folk more than those with means to do more than grow the crops.

BTW, when you go into labor, will you finally then put your screwdriver down? Would your network server repairing husband need to put it down too? Or could it be there is at least 1 advantage in being male in doing this job? Might we find more if we look harder?

Well, I'm a guy so.....

 

[redleghunter]

I can't really reply for the radical feminists you spoke to, but there's a chance that they might have tried to communicate the kind of idea I shared above:
See, some feminists feel that distinguishing between "sex" (the biological dimension) and "gender" (the socio-cultural construct) is already going too far; to them, it's basically the equivalent of saying there's valid racism (intelligent Jews, athletic Africans) and invalid racism (KKK). The moment you construct the kind of fundamental chasm between people, stereotyping them on account of some physical characteristics, you've already crossed the line.
I'm not sure whether I agree completely with them, but I see where they are coming from. If you told an African that it's his natural role in life to be an athlete rather than an academic, that'd be pretty offensive - but tell a woman that her "natural role" is to stay home and raise the kids, and all of a sudden it's socially acceptable.

First, IMO, your use of race to compare to men and women is flawed. Because there are Black men and Black women. Each falls into your role argument with regards to sexism. The male-female relationship is unlike any other human interaction. Especially in the Christian worldview (reminder you came to CF to discuss this). Unlike is low balling it to say the least. The TaNaKh (OT) and Brit HaHadashah (NT) teach us that men and women cannot be without each other. There is a natural longing for each other and it's not just sexual (as the post-modern Dawkins world would have us believe).

So here's the Biblical view of the relationship between women and men:

In Genesis we have this:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."(Genesis chapter 1)

So both men and women are created in the image of God. So see no sexism there.

Now what did Jesus Christ say based on this?

Matthew 19:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(KJV)

So Jesus tells us when a man and woman join they become one flesh. Wow, what a radical Jesus was! That does not sound sexist to me at all. One flesh.

Now I know you focused on roles. Do you have an issue with a Christian couple who are 'one flesh' in the eyes of God to have the husband work the fields, or any job while the wife raises the children? Does the woman have to work outside the house and drop off her kids with strangers to raise to meet your idea of busting up ancient sexist traditions?

Finally, as logical beings we can look at history, most of it modern to see what works best. Is our society any better now than 30 years ago with regards to raising kids, kids passing in school, and becoming productive players in society since most men and women decided dual income and day care works best for that McMansion and his/her Beamer in the driveway?

 

[redleghunter]

Traditional female socialization tends to emphasize conformity and submission, avoiding conflicts and following rules.
Accordingly, they are less likely to break the mold.

That sounds like a textbook answer from Sexism 101 at a community college. What you posted is nonsense. It may apply to cults like Islam. Did you go to a Muslim site and post the same question? If so, please do share with us the responses.

 

[dlamberth]

We are screwed how? Not arguing against them being in leadership roles, but I don't buy into the idea that if women were in charge of more things everything would be better. They are ultimately people.

I'm not suggesting that women should be in charge. But I believe that we need balance. As I look around the world, we men haven't done a very good job and need help.

 

[chris.j.b]

I'm discussing the common folk more than those with means to do more than grow the crops.


Well, I'm a guy so.....

What, women never did anything in the fields? Google "painting of women working in the fields" and we know we'll see plenty of women from the agrarian period working in the fields.

OK, you're a guy, so you won't be going into labor and stopping whatever work.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm not suggesting that women should be in charge. But I believe that we need balance. As I look around the world, we men haven't done a very good job and need help.

Doesn't really answer the question. What are women going to bring to the table that isn't already there?

 

[redleghunter]

Yeah, and sadly they were my wife's friends and it kind of drove a wedge between people. The funny thing, to me, is that they said that but then went on to say that they were afraid of all men because men rape women by overpowering them. It was like... if strength is the same, how are men overpowering them?

That's actually sad. Women who embrace such stereotypes of men usually come from abusive households. Those that don't come from such families embrace the university herd mentality.

 

[LoAmmi]

What, women never did anything in the fields? Google "painting of women working in the fields" and we know we'll see plenty of women from the agrarian period working in the fields.

I never said that women never worked in the fields. But none of those paintings show pregnant women and they also are all from around the 1800s which was well into the swing of the industrial revolution. The period of time that actually signals the end of the agrarian era in the countries it took place in.

 

[chris.j.b]

As I look around the world, we men haven't done a very good job and need help.

What a sexist comment. Men haven't done a very good job, apparently by virtue of being men!

 

[Light of the East]

As virtually all established religions originated after the agrarian and before the industrial revolution, it does not come as much of a surprise that they reflect the moral and cultural norms of an era that revolved around land ownership, chains of succession, and the repression and controlling of female sexuality. Even Buddhism, which might look like a perfect candidate for a more egalitarian stance, was deeply enmeshed in sexual politics since day one, reflecting the mores of the society around it.

What we need to keep in mind in this context is that sexism - like racism - is first and foremost based on the assumption of a fundamental and essential difference between the postulated categories. "Jews are weak intellectuals, Africans are naive athletes." "Men cannot express feelings. Women are gushing with emotion."
This difference informs the sexists' perception of the world and their own place within it.

Now, the question is: can religions that are so deeply rooted in the past adapt to a new era - and do they even intend to do so? Since many of them regard their texts as timeless revelations, and since these texts are so fundamentally rooted in bygone ages, I wonder if a "transplant" is possible.

You don't believe in God, so what difference does this make to you? Go your way, be happy, and do whatever you want to do. Just leave us alone since you aren't a part of our club.

 

[dlamberth]

That could explain the women but actually sounds somewhat sexist as it sort of makes female Christians out to be masochistic , docile and accepting of the role of an inferior. In my experience, Christian women do not tend to be at all like that but I appreciate your opinion may differ from mine on that as we have different experiences to draw from. What about the males. Why are they reticent to be involved with something that gives them the upper hand over females?

Do you have female Ministers in your church?

 

[dlamberth]

What a sexist comment. Men haven't done a very good job, apparently by virtue of being men!

Without women to balance things out, we get what we have which is an out of balanced world with wars and mass-world hunger.