Sexism and Religion

[pwood]

I

You are right, when you say that we are all called to be servants. I understand that you were not talking about being servants. And neither was I. I was talking about how we are all called to submit, to obey, to line up underneath the authority of another, etc. and that includes in the church. I fail to see how I'm deflecting anything, actually.

What I was doing was pointing out that the same accusation, regarding subservience, is in your comment in the same way I've heard other feminist comments. That is to say that it is presented in such a way that demands that anybody expecting anyone into a bay any man in any church is guilty, by default, of seeing women as lesser in value, an animal to be dominated, a slave to be ordered around in a dictatorial fashion. It's a sad state of affairs that we can't even have a conversation about church leadership without that accusation flung in the faces of every man and every church.

Is just irresponsible to suggest that because I bring that up, I am somehow denying the existence of dictatorship in church situations. Smh

Yeah, even though the main definitions of subservient means to be a less important subordinate or to obey unquestionably. Which when directed in the context of a woman, speaks for itself.

 

[Troy Rambo]

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 Bible is absolutely adapted to this new era and any era to ever come! Im not saying this only because of what the Bible says about sex, but from my own experiences. Ive had pre-marital sex and it was never blessed. In other words, it was lousy. And even if I thought I had a good time, Id usually get disrespected somehow shortly after.

"You may be sure your sins will find you out." Numbers 32:23

Only sex between a husband and wife is blessed by God and I wish I had been patient and waited on the Lord to get married first.

 

[pwood]

The Bible is absolutely adapted to this new era and any era to ever come! Im not saying this only because of what the Bible says about sex, but from my own experiences. Ive had pre-marital sex and it was never blessed. In other words, it was lousy. And even if I thought I had a good time, Id usually get disrespected somehow shortly after.

"You may be sure your sins will find you out." Numbers 32:23

Only sex between a husband and wife is blessed by God and I wish I had been patient and waited on the Lord to get married first.

What does it mean exactly that the bible can be adapted to any era when there are passages in the old testament instructing parents to kill off their disobedient children. See, and trying not to offend. If it takes the bible to show you promiscuity may not end well, what actually would prevent you from killing a disobedient child?

 

[ScottA]

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.

Just joining in (following the email announcement of the thread).

I am not sure just what you are purposing, but I suspect that it is against sexism. Because the word so wreaks of disdain, it is as if all should chime in with words against it. But I would take a different course: It seems to me, with sex being natural, and wanting to yield greatest favor to women...I should think that we all have been duped into thinking that there is something unacceptable about the whole topic, perhaps by our worst enemy, the Devil. Was it not Satan, whom God referred to when asking Adam and Eve who it was that told them they were naked?

In that way, it would seem to be like money. It's not evil, in and of itself, and only if it is abused. So then, it is abuse that should be considered the problem...and not sex or money.

If women, then, take center stage or get headline billing...let us take care not to make it abuse, while at the same time not entering into guilt or shame with the Devil. If we are in Christ, we have been found not guilty. We are free.

 

[loatheshypocrites]

I fail to see any logical point of mine that you are addressing and at first reading it seems to me that you have simply made some irrelevant remark that has nothing to do with my question. My question assumes that all religions are basically sexist against females as that is the premise of the OP. With that as a given, I asked why female Christians are many times more likely to be involved in the religious activities of the Christian religion than male Christians when it would seem to be an unlikely consequence of the given stated. Is it your contention then that only females would be effected by wanting to do what their deity instructs and males somehow do not have the same desire to do so?

Being a fundamental baptist, I will try to answer your question. I was raised in a southern baptist church. I attend a fundamental baptist church and I would be considered a "black sheep" because of some of my views. A "biblical" woman submits to her husband needing no other reason than the Bible commands her to do so. That's it in a nutshell. Whether the husband deserves it or not, a wife should be loyal and supportive. The book of Proverbs states the roles that are to be assumed by both male and females in a relationship. The males are the providers and warriors and the women are the homemakers and nurturers. Do I agree with it all...not hardly...but I try to live the way I am supposed to...kicking and screaming the whole way...lol. Do I succeed...not enough. Women that are raised in a conservative church usually continue to live that way into adulthood. They attend churches where they might meet the "right" kind of man to marry. They attend churches for the social aspect too. It isn't like we fundamental baptists are going to go try to hook up at a bar or something, so we have social gatherings at church. Also, a good church is a great support group for people....I stress that it must be a good church. I am not sure I really helped answer you but I gave it a try.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

That would only be a logical response. If you are a man can you conceive and bear a child? Provide it milk from your own body? No, a man cannot. So there is clearly some roles even an atheist can observe from nature.

Bearing a child isn't a role, any more than peeing standing up is a role. Parenting a child is a role, one that can be done well by either men or women, and by either biological or adoptive parents.

 

[Faith77]

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.

I read a great analysis of this recently, but I can't remember where! One of the reasons postulated is that men don't want to be involved in things associated with females (which is why they have to market different deodorants for males). Another reason is the hierarchical paid ministry model (versus the laypersons model), where lay male members have fewer roles, but since females have been relegated to ushering or childrens sunday school, they still have their place. In places that have more active lay membership, the congregants seem to have higher male representation. And while it's true that women tend to more involved in social activities than males, it is argued that they are socialised that way from young, as seen from studies that show that young girls are encouraged that way through reinforcements.

Regarding differences, Jane said, "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."

In fact, the distribution of most abilities are on a continuum and the overlap suggests that while males may outperform females in physical abilities, there are many women that still outperform men - e.g.a female Olympic 100 m finalist will certainly outrun most males for that distance. Put another way, there are few significant differences between males and females in psychological and some physical traits, and the differences within each sex is greater than between. The exceptions are visual spatial reasoning, preference for sexual variety and aggression. The major differences are physiological but these hardly justify the categorisations that seem to exist.

The "equal but different in roles" argument is illogical, according to a very cogent argument put forward by Rebecca Groothuis, who wrote Good News for Women 30 years ago!

 

[Troy Rambo]

What does it mean exactly that the bible can be adapted to any era when there are passages in the old testament instructing parents to kill off their disobedient children. See, and trying not to offend. If it takes the bible to show you promiscuity may not end well, what actually would prevent you from killing a disobedient child?

This website may answer your question better than I can. But what I got from it was it was meant for children who were rebellious in an extreme way. http://www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebellious-children.html

 

[dlamberth]

Being a fundamental baptist, I will try to answer your question. I was raised in a southern baptist church. I attend a fundamental baptist church and I would be considered a "black sheep" because of some of my views. A "biblical" woman submits to her husband needing no other reason than the Bible commands her to do so. That's it in a nutshell. Whether the husband deserves it or not, a wife should be loyal and supportive. The book of Proverbs states the roles that are to be assumed by both male and females in a relationship. The males are the providers and warriors and the women are the homemakers and nurturers.

I've seen this all of this explained before, from several sources, most notably from my brother-in-laws whose wife's are busy pumping out babies like crazy. What we end up with is a male dominated leadership. I understand that's the desired trajectory in fundamentalist churches. But for society as a whole, I think we need more women in leadership roles.

 

[awitch]

Hillary Clinton....Is she pagan approved?

You have quite the fixation on Hilary Clinton, don't you?

 

[LoAmmi]

I've seen this all of this explained before, from several sources, most notably from my brother-in-laws whose wife's are busy pumping out babies like crazy. What we end up with is a male dominated leadership. I understand that's the desired trajectory in fundamentalist churches. But for society as a whole, I think we need more women in leadership roles.

You have yet to tell me what women bring to the table that makes them either better leaders or better at righting the country. Again, I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be in leadership positions, I just want to know what magic they possess that will make things better.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Too bad more religious people can't admit that, too.

Well, I'll admit to it. I don't know everything, neither am I required to.

And how long must the scientific community agree before you're convinced? And how do you determine that standard?
I do trust the scientific consensus because it provides the best possible explanations based on evidence. But that's just me.

You may need to explain, which scientific community? I don't think that the agreement of even the broader scientific community, if you wish to remain that ambiguous, necessarily makes a thing true. If we all accepted that there might possibly be no further advancement. One needs to ascertain, have all the questions been asked and answered? Have the right questions been asked? I can tell you that is very hard to satisfy, ask a scientist.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Not having any other gods and not making graven images are the most important?

Although ordering gets weird between different groups, so that might be the first entirely with the second being not taking the Lord's name in vain as the second. Nobody can agree on anything.

Actually Jesus quoted which were the greatest commandments... Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and, love your neighbour as yourself. Mark 12:30,31.

 

[LoAmmi]

Actually Jesus quoted which were the greatest commandments... Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and, love your neighbour as yourself. Mark 12:30,31.

Those aren't #1 and #2 of the Ten Commandments. Neither of those are in the Ten Commandments.

 

[awitch]

You may need to explain, which scientific community?

Credible scientists with the proper qualifications for whichever scientific topic is being referred to. What other community could I possibly be referring to?

If we all accepted that there might possibly be no further advancement.

No scientist accepts that there is no possibility of further advancement. Scientist determine the best possible explanation based on the available evidence. If new evidence is found, the scientific theories are corrected to account for it. That's how science works.

I can tell you that is very hard to satisfy, ask a scientist.

Technically speaking, I am a scientist.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

I think it's because we are waking up to the denial and intolerance that we were taught when we were children..

I suppose that would depend on who "we" incriminates. I know my parents had prejudices but we were taught to recognise them just as that: prejudices, and we were taught that by our parents, not the government school where these things abounded. Yes I know about denial and intolerance, I suffered abuse because of it, but I don't need to be a part of it. To me the answer is love, not retaliation, though I am probably guilty of it sometimes, constant abuse is hard to take. I honestly empathise with anyone who has suffered abuse.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Those aren't #1 and #2 of the Ten Commandments. Neither of those are in the Ten Commandments.

Yes, I realise this. It is not my post and I was hoping to help while pointing out the mistake that can easily be made. I hope I helped you and the person you were answering.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Credible scientists with the proper qualifications for whichever scientific topic is being referred to. What other community could I possibly be referring to?



No scientist accepts that there is no possibility of further advancement. Scientist determine the best possible explanation based on the available evidence. If new evidence is found, the scientific theories are corrected to account for it. That's how science works.



Technically speaking, I am a scientist.

Ok, as long as you're satisfied.

 

[MehGuy]

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.

Yeah, I can't catch a break. Lol.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Here's what I get: as a christian I deserve to be called an intolerant bigot; as a Caucasian I am a racist simply because I'm white, and as a male I'm a chauvinist, and its okay for everyone to call me these things because its what I am. I am the most abused person on the planet but that's okay, it appears, if I don't want the abuse I shouldn't be those things, and then you tell me you've got problems?

Come now, where is the equality in this line of questioning?

The only real solution to the situation is just love. Love those who hate you; love those who spitefully use you; love your enemies. This is hard to do, but I've had to do it all my life. I've had to choose to be friendly and forgiving when others were not and didn't deserve it. I've been spat on, kicked, punched, verbally abused and excluded. Twice on the verge of a nervous breakdown [ages 8 & 12]. And yet here I am, still offering friendship. Why? Because I choose to love and that is what I encourage you to do.