Sexism and Religion

[gord44]

That's the point. What you may call 'rigid' religion is someone obeying the commands of God.

If that's their point of view and understanding of God then that's cool if it works for them.

 

[gord44]

Excellent! And the Sermon on the Mount came with authority too.

 

[redleghunter]

'Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and pliant; dead, they are brittle and dry. Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.' Tao Te Ching 72

Well very wise words. One becomes dead, stiff and hard by kicking against the goads of God's commands. They are called the 10 Commandments and not the '10 Suggestions.'

 

[Mary Ellen]

I agree with your second paragraph to a point. The assumptions you list are not sexist as much as they are discriminatory and divisive. Jews and Africans are cultures and therefore discriminatory comments abound there as well as for other groups such as the Irish, English, German, Swedish, South Americans and so on. The comments regarding men and women are subjective in nature and border on sexism perpetrated by people wishing to push forth their particular agendas. For instance, the comment about men only serves to promote homosexuality and the emasculation of heterosexual males. The comment about women fails to acknowledge the hidden reserves of emotional strength women bring to all aspects of life, work, love and play. All these comments promote disunity....between groups of people and between genders. There are no religions but competing doctrines of group ideology and theology. LOL!

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.

 

[awitch]

LOL any of those women fall asleep at the switch when Benghazi went up in flames? Ol' Hillary is the right balancing act for you?

That's probably better discussed in the politics forum.

 

[GQ Chris]

Asians cannot properly digest cow's milk.

lol; that's a Hoot. I'm Asian and digest even Raw Cow's milk just fine. In fact, I love and guzzle the stuff.

 

[MehGuy]

lol; that's a Hoot. I'm Asian and digest even Raw Cow's milk just fine. In fact, I love and guzzle the stuff.

I didn't know you're Asian.

I'm white and I can't digest cow's milk very well. I must be a failure to my race.

 

[GQ Chris]

I'm white and I can't digest cow's milk very well. I must be a failure to my race.

lol, really? Wow. Then you're at an extreme disadvantage especially since you're trying to get more muscular. Raw Cow's milk is rich in Branch chain Amino acids.

 

[bhsmte]

lol, really? Wow. Then you're at an extreme disadvantage especially since you're trying to get more muscular. Raw Cow's milk is rich in Branch chain Amino acids.

Egg whites will do the trick.

 

[pwood]

So you see most women going to church 'put up with it.' Are you sure you don't mean men. Walk into a Christian church today and you would think 3/4ths of the women are 'single' or single moms: No husband, boyfriend , finance sitting next to them.

I am speaking of any Christian environment in the United States that the OP speaks of. I know churches that have female pastors, it is unlikely that it is a male controlled environment. But among the churches that expect women to be the subservient gender, then yes, they put up with it, since they can choose not to go.

 

[Hot Ice the MGTOW]

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.

The entire post is pregnant with hidden false premises-- the same type of false promises that I see in every feminist discourse I have ever read.

There's this premise that says if anybody States a difference between men and women, that they are making a statement about value, about power, etc., rather than one about function. It sets the stage in such a way that anyone who dare say that men and women are different in any kind of way, whatsoever, are somehow guilty of putting down women comma in the most abusive and oppressive manner. Which leads me to my next point: the title mentioned sexism, but the post only mentions sexism against women, assuming that they are the only ones that suffer it ( if not, one would have to question why only sexism involving male perpetrators and female victims is mentioned in this, and just about every other feminist post).

Having said that, the scriptures do not need to change, or be updated in any way. The principles that drive the Bible have never been, nor will they ever be, contained or successfully contaminated by culture. Any true follower of Christ will certainly value both men and women, and will not speak of sexism as though men are guilty and women are innocent, by default.

Mentioning an order that and preserves and protects order in household and society is in no way to be confused with sexism the belief that one's gender makes one INHERENTLY superior to another of another gender.

 

[dlamberth]

So I was listening to an interview of Chief Sitting Bull's great grandson. And he was telling how the men in their tribe would all sit around the camp fire talking and coming up with all of these grand plans. But they would not act on any of them until their ideas went through the women's circle and got their approval.

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.onbeing.org/program/reimagining-sitting-bull-tatanka-iyotake/transcript/2429

 

[Hot Ice the MGTOW]

I am speaking of any Christian environment in the United States that the OP speaks of. I know churches that have female pastors, it is unlikely that it is a male controlled environment. But among the churches that expect women to be the subservient gender, then yes, they put up with it, since they can choose not to go.

Every last one of the followers of Christ are called to be subservient, weather we are talking about to the Holy Spirit, to Christ, God the Father, to government, bosses, parents or husbands. Hidden accusation in the constant use of the word subservient is that men are going to see through wall power over women for the sake of being in control, for the sake of dominating, for the sake of having their way at the expense of others. The spiritual state in which a person would do that has nothing to do with gender. Never has, and never will. Therefore, we should stop talking about it as though it were a male problem that needs to be fixed by fixing men. It's disgusting. But furthermore, it is destructive, as it will never, ever, address the problem at its root.

 

[LuminousPhoenix]

There are massive differences between the males and females of every species of animal on Earth. Humans are not exempt. The logical conclusion (which nature shows us is correct) is that men and women do tend to fit better into certain roles. To deny this is simply naivete and political correctness. Science has also shown us that there are significant differences between the brains of men and women. So yes, the whole "men and woman are equal, but fill different roles" is entirely correct. Although, as I'll point out below, humans are more advanced and sentient than other animals and have more freedom to choose their own destiny, even if it conflicts with traditional gender roles, and there's nothing wrong with that.

http://brainblogger.com/2015/01/13/mars-vs-venus-differences-in-male-and-female-brains/
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/05/12/chimpanzees-why-boys-and-girls-different-behavior

This isn't to say that women must be stay at home moms and shouldn't work full time even with children, or that men can't be stay at home dads. It simply means that in general, women might be better suited than men to the role of being a stay at home mom, and men might be better suited than women to the role of being the primary worker and provider. Women are usually better nurturers and have a higher emotional intelligence, and men are usually more assertive and aggressive making them better leaders. This does NOT mean that some women can't be better leaders than some men, and that some men can't have higher emotional intelligence than some women. Many of the best co-workers and bosses I've ever had were women, for example. And yes, I'll readily admit that there is truth to the wage gap - my wife works harder and gets much more done than the men in her department, yet she makes less than the men, many of whom do nothing but goof off all day. If my wife wants to work full time, more power to her - but if she wants to be a stay at home mom, I'll do my best to be the sole breadwinner.

Many differences (maybe even most - the verdict is out on that one) between men and women ARE due to external experiences and socialization during childhood and even adulthood. But this doesn't negate anything I've mentioned above. Everyone is a product of both nature and nurture.

Just because you live in reality does not make you sexist.

 

[pwood]

Every last one of the followers of Christ are called to be subservient, weather we are talking about to the Holy Spirit, to Christ, God the Father, to government, bosses, parents or husbands. Hidden accusation in the constant use of the word subservient is that men are going to see through wall power over women for the sake of being in control, for the sake of dominating, for the sake of having their way at the expense of others. The spiritual state in which a person would do that has nothing to do with gender. Never has, and never will. Therefore, we should stop talking about it as though it were a male problem that needs to be fixed by fixing men. It's disgusting. But furthermore, it is destructive, as it will never, ever, address the problem at its root.

While we are called to be servants, that isn't even close to what I am talking about, and I know you know that. You are simply deflecting the reality of many Christian environments. Many Christian environments that Women continue to willingly go to are male dominated and they teach that women have their place as dictated by the males that teach in these environments. (how convenient). All under the guise of being "biblical". I mean, just state the phrase "The bible should not be changed" when talking about females in religion and there is my point made. These environments have nothing to do with the spiritual side of things, just because a bunch of people use religious clichés.

 

[Zoness]

META: Is it just me or this thread getting raided? A lot of non-regulars posting.

At any rate I'm going to try to rebase the discussion since I've lost track of my rants a few pages back. One thing I do not understand: Why are women disallowed authority over men in many traditional churches? Is this more separate but equal stuff or what? Same question extends to Muslims.

 

[redleghunter]

That's probably better discussed in the politics forum.

But Sarah Palin and Bachman are fair game here? Oh, I see only conservative women are a danger to our society but the Hillary Clinton's and Margaret Sanger's are a ok?

 

[redleghunter]

META: Is it just me or this thread getting raided? A lot of non-regulars posting.

This concerns you? You are a self-described crypto-anarchist

 

[redleghunter]

I am speaking of any Christian environment in the United States that the OP speaks of. I know churches that have female pastors, it is unlikely that it is a male controlled environment. But among the churches that expect women to be the subservient gender, then yes, they put up with it, since they can choose not to go.

The above makes no sense. So American Christian women are into self punishment because the men they marry don't go to church but they go anyway because they are subservient?

 

[LoAmmi]

But Sarah Palin and Bachman are fair game here? Oh, I see only conservative women are a danger to our society but the Hillary Clinton's and Margaret Sanger's are a ok?

Margaret Sanger's been dead since the 1960s. Why do people keep dragging her out? I hear Ulysses S. Grant wasn't much of a President.