Sexism and Religion

[MehGuy]

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.

Yes, you are the most abused group in the world. I come close, but my atheism makes me slightly better off than you.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

They bring a different way at looking at things. Men generally are more right-brain thinking. Women generally are more left-brain thinking.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

In awakening, no one needs to be incriminated. No one has suggested that. Your exactly correct, the answer IS love.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

Generally speaking, the average church has a 70/30 split in its congregation. Generally, the church has been feminised with feminine décor and flowers and the leaders have been feminised as they are usually book people.

When was the last time you saw a sanctuary that has a motorbike in it during a service? When was the last time you saw the leader was an ex bikie or an ex truckie? When was the last time a sermon was not three points and a delusion?

I speak as one who has been theologically trained; has a love affair with books; is a readaholic and who enjoys nothing more than a good chinwag around the word of God.

But and I believe this is the important bit, I don’t believe in the one man ministry as it has shown to be a failure. In Ephesians it is very clear that you need five ministries, that of apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd and teacher to mature the saints and bring them into unity. While we persist in the one size fits all we are going to alienate a large percentage of the population which is evident as generally 90% of the population of any town is ignored or not reached by the church.

Fortunately the church I am part of does not believe one size fits all. We believe in the priesthood of all believers and we help everyone to discover their gifting and operate in it. Regardless of gender, whatever your gifting is, that is where you are placed. What you might call a round peg in a round hole.

Is it working? Yes because at the midweek house fellowship it is usually a 50/50 split. Both genders are active in the ministry. In the main Sunday meetings (we have four of them at the main campus and two at the satellite campuses) both male and female are operating in their gifts.

We don’t get all uptight about the gender thing because we focus on gifting not gender. Too many churches focus on gender not gifting. Man can put a man or a woman in a position but without an anointing from God it is a waste of time. When God anoints the ministry is effective and vital.

Every week we have new converts join the church. One month recently we had 161 of them. That doesn’t happen in most churches as they are more interested in maintaining the status quo and anyone who believes doing the same thing every week is going to provide a different outcome is deluded.

We do the same thing most weeks but we have different outcomes depending on who is operating in their gifting. Get rid of the one man system and you have endless possibilities and the idea of gender bias is non existent.

 

[LoAmmi]

They bring a different way at looking at things. Men generally are more right-brain thinking. Women generally are more left-brain thinking.

http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

The myth of left vs right brained.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

I am not sure of the exact numbers but it is something like 127 Nobel Prizes for Jews and nine for Arabs. That would suggest some form of intelligence that Jews have. Yesterday I watched the 100 metre final at the World Athletics. Every runner was a black. That suggest an innate ability that is by no means racist.

 

[As I was saying]

Really??? Even from reputable sources like Time, NYTimes and Forbes, they could present skewed information?

I couldn't find one either. I did read way back due to the controversial nature of the research, there's not much done in that direction.

It's like nobody wants to find out who's the more intelligent gender. One experiment was conducted in dogs and female dogs are the ones who scored higher in the tests involved.

Just a small point. When has a newspaper been reliable? They print what sells copies. Today they generally go overboard in support of same sex marriage because to do otherwise will incur the wrath of the social anarchists.

 

[As I was saying]

The religions and the rigid will have to change or eventually be discarded.

So we are being told all the time but the evidence is that those who are not changing are the ones pulling in the numbers. The christian churches that are losing out badly are those who are ordaining women and homosexuals. Those that don't are growing by leaps and bounds.

 

[Pammalamma]

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.

Hmm.

I don't think I believe a word OP is saying, here. The original post is condescending and disingenuous in the extreme. "You see, we all know that Christians are troglodytic bigots who lack the intelligence necessary to even understand this post. Sad, isn't it? Whatever can be done?"

I don't believe you, Jane. I don't believe you're Gaia's godchild. I don't believe you think there is some hope of saving Christianity from itself; I think your mind is made up and you just enjoy insulting people you hate. I don't believe you see no difference between racism and simple biology, like the different effects that testosterone and estrogen have on human bodies. I don't even believe you want "equality."

You made a generalization. I shall also indulge in one: Women who talk about feminism in an accusing way, especially as a predominant form of communication are usually badly damaged and basically reactionary. It's not about equality, it's about power, and more of it. Equal power is not what feminists want, they want all the power. If the shoe doesn't fit--fine. But your post is the most intellectually dishonest one I have ever seen on this forum. It's essentially dishing. I suppose you might see that as a compliment, if you don't care about the truth. Can you even define "truth" without looking it up?

I've been molested, rejected, singled out, and fended off three attempted rapists. None of those men claimed to be Christians. In fact, many of them claimed to be gay, and that's certainly not Christian. So, your claim, from this Christian woman's perspective, is wholly false. Do Christian men discriminate against women? Sure, but so do non-Christian men. Do Christian men rape women? Sure, but if they are found out, at least they have no excuse. Try to make a frat boy feel bad about what he's done: "The b*tch was comatose on the couch, so she was asking for it."

Christians do break their own rules, but guess what? At least we have rules. Without God's authority, it's your word against the word of your attacker(s). So, you disdain my worldview and my way of life... everything I hold dear. Well, I disdain your lack of honesty in posting this here, and your belief that mere creations are more powerful than the Creator. I pray God has mercy on you, and that you will accept it.

 

[Hot Ice the MGTOW]

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.

It may speak for itself. So does the fact that the only ones talking about women being subservient are feminists that are hurling accusations at men, on the whole--or trolls who enjoy enfuriating women.

NONE of that has anything to do with God's Word

 

[As I was saying]

That is correct. The Feminist attack on the Bible began in the 60s and accused God of promoting patriarchy, with patriarchy having a negative connotation. What Christians should be fully aware of is that Feminism is essentially rebellion against God and His design for men and women. Therefore Feminists also worship the universal "Goddess Mother", which is Satan's substitute for the one true and living God. This Goddess Mother is to be found in every pagan religion since the tower of Babel. The only problem is that this Goddess Mother is pretty ugly.

if you want to see feminism off the wall just attend one of our march for babies. Each year about 50 of them try and break up the march, shouting and yelling obscenities and blasphemies, trying to tear down banners, pushing over old women walking with sticks ands hitting anyone within striking distance. Do they achieve anything? Not a thing except make themselves look complete fools.

 

[As I was saying]

I can't speak for other religions, but as a Christian I feel like people worry so much about the gender and less about "keep My commandments". I feel like people elevate the leadership role that God has given us, Elders, so much as if being a leader is "better than" and not realizing that Christ ask us to be a "slave" to each other. It doesn't matter what we feel that man or woman can do, it is about being obedient to the One who have asked us to be servants. Christ came, as a humble servant, and we are asked to be.

We are so focused and saying "I can do anything you can do better" not realizing that the vision that God is trying to accomplish is not the same vision that we are trying to do. It is not God who is trying to elevate either man or woman, for we are all one in Christ, for those who are in Christ, it is about glorifying God in a way that pleases God.

A great post daydream gurl.

 

[gord44]

...

 

[timewerx]

But men also were the ones who planned hunts and wars, so I don't know. The point is, women are not inherently better than men.

Wars for the most part is stupid, but really there is no word for it when you use intelligence to do utterly stupid things. Because that is way way worse than stupid!

At the surface, who is really better is debatable, but at the genetic level, there is a clear winner - females. XX genes is simply far more resilient than XY and with a little tweaking (scientists have done so in a mice) XX can do virgin births (completely without sperm cells). There's no conceivable way to pull the same trick with a male alone, without egg cells - because over 90% of the genetic material is stored in the egg!

The virgin birth process is still not yet perfected with relatively high rates of failure but some animals who already do like the whiptail lizards, do so with completely healthy offsprings. It's only a matter of little effort until the technique is perfected, but the lack of interest is is proving an obstacle to the research.

 

[MehGuy]

Wars for the most part is stupid, but really there is no word for it when you use intelligence to do utterly stupid things. Because that is way way worse than stupid!

At the surface, who is really better is debatable, but at the genetic level, there is a clear winner - females. XX genes is simply far more resilient than XY and with a little tweaking (scientists have done so in a mice) XX can do virgin births (completely without sperm cells). There's no conceivable way to pull the same trick with a male alone, without egg cells - because over 90% of the genetic material is stored in the egg!

The virgin birth process is still not yet perfected with relatively high rates of failure but some animals who already do like the whiptail lizards, do so with completely healthy offsprings. It's only a matter of little effort until the technique is perfected, but the lack of interest is is proving an obstacle to the research.

I fail to see how this makes females better..

With over 7 billion humans on the planet, the ability to give birth has never had a lower value.

 

[Abandoned Barns]

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.

I think they can, but probably not in the way that you'd like. Remember the whole point of Christianity, for all genders and races alike, is to learn to be in submission - to God, so asking will women be in less submission in this new era is like asking if someone will be less under water - well, maybe, but still under water. I agree with those who say that the problem of sexism/racism is not in the recognition of certain normative differences between groupings, but rather two things - firstly, treating those normative differences as if they were absolute differences in order to cap certain individual's potentials, and secondly the subsequent devaluation of those roles to which the attributes of the mean of individuals of any particular group is well suited.

E.g. #1: Refusing to lower the standards of Army Ranger training so that more woman might succeed in passing that training course is not, in my opinion, sexist, but refusing to let any woman even try is.

E.g. #2: Woman have a far denser corpus coliseum (the network of nerve fibers connecting the two hemispheres of the brain) then men do. As such they are, as a normal distribution, inherently better suited for roles involving multi-tasking. Homemaking is one such role. Minding the young ones, keeping the fire burning, foraging for edible vegetation, tending the garden, making clothes, cooking, and keeping an eye open for invasions from neighboring tribes - that's a hard job now! Probably the most important job in any small society. So if the average woman was physiologically better equip the to preform such a role, then it makes sense to me that they would be the ones to be left at home to do so. When you think about it: an extra eleven and a half percent of muscle mass really isn't all that much when you're trying to kill a woolly mammoth with a stick, so it seems far more likely to me that the men were sent out hunting not because they were the most valuable members of the society, but because they were the most expendable. So at what point did the social "value" of those roles change?

There needs to be a distinction made between the ideology of Christianity (the intended tenants of our faith) and the religion of Christianity (how mankind has interpreted and manipulated those tenants). There was a time when men belonging to my own church would sit in the very pews in which I sit each Sunday and quote scripture in support of not allowing negros to attend services and worship in our church - those men were wrong, but it probably didn't seem like it at the time to most of those listening to them. Our culture has a way of not letting us see the misapplications of our faith, but in time, and presumably with God's guidance, that has changed. What hasn't changed is God's will, but rather our interpretation of it. Christianity doesn't change, but Christians do.

 

[LoAmmi]

I fail to see how this makes females better..

With over 7 billion humans on the planet, the ability to give birth has never had a lower value.

Some people latch onto anything they can to prove their side is better. I looked at the whole mouse thing and, let me tell you, seems like it works a lot better the old fashioned way as opposed to taking immature eggs from human females, genetically manipulating them so that they appear to be "male-like", and then combining it with a mature egg. Need we point out that it still takes two people as you wouldn't want what would amount to incest to occur by using two eggs from the same person.

 

[MehGuy]

Some people latch onto anything they can to prove their side is better. I looked at the whole mouse thing and, let me tell you, seems like it works a lot better the old fashioned way as opposed to taking immature eggs from human females, genetically manipulating them so that they appear to be "male-like", and then combining it with a mature egg. Need we point out that it still takes two people as you wouldn't want what would amount to incest to occur by using two eggs from the same person.

Males also help the strengthen gene pool. Without males there would be less competition resulting in less sophisticated life forms, and I doubt without males we'd ever having anything resembling the sophistication and intelligence of a human being.

Sorry female supremacists (or whatever you want to call yourselves), but males have actually been quite important. Lol.

 

[LoAmmi]

Males also help the strengthen gene pool. Without males there would be less competition resulting in less sophisticated life forms, and I doubt without males we'd ever having anything resembling the sophistication and intelligence of a human being.

Sorry female supremacists (or whatever you want to call yourselves), but males have actually been quite important. Lol.

Also, the process seems like a lot to go though when there are, you know, men around and sex is still a thing that exists. I've actually heard that some people even enjoy it.

 

[jackcv]

As virtually all established religions ...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.

Jumping in late here, but I searched all 15 pages for the words "example" and "specific", trying to find what Jane the Bane is talking about.

Examples, Jane? Specifically, what repression? What controlling?

If you want to make a generalization like this, one has to assume you can name one or two specific examples of "repression and controlling" from every religion you wish to criticize. From their scriptures.

Not in the government schools. Not by a few exceptional nut-cases - we are found in every organization. No, but where does Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Islam, or Trinitarian Christianity, or LDS Christianity, or Judaism teach/encourage repression and controlling of women, other than by themselves?