Sexism and Religion

[Jane_the_Bane]

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?

General examples?
The cult of virginity, specifically female virginity.
The structure of traditional marriage. (As a contract between the husband and the father/older brother - only symbolically these days, but you can still tell where it comes from. Also, structuring the relationship in a way that hands exclusive authority to the husband, and demands the wife to obey and submit.)
Sexual double standards. (Traditionally, women are punished and ostracized much more harshly for promiscuity, even in cases where lip service is paid to a more egalitarian scheme.)
The need to penalize or even demonize sex, and the need to protect lines of heritage by suppressing female sexuality, specifically.

Specific examples:

Buddhism: early Buddhism was relentlessly misogynist, describing women as spiritually inferior beings who have a much harder time realizing enlightenment, and could never possibly become a Buddha. Far from transforming the sexist societies it influenced, Buddhism perpetuated the gender norms of its day and age.

Hinduism: the Ramayana shows the hero casting off his wife for potentially having been raped by her abductor, feeling that this renders her "impure" and "unchaste". In spite of its many venerated female deities, traditional hindu culture is deeply sexist. Even ignoring historical, local practices such as the burning of widows, hindu culture perpetuates the cult of virginity to the point where supposedly "unchaste" women are considered fit for rape because they dare to venture out of the house without a male protector and do not wear "proper" clothing.

Judaism: The Mosaic law includes rape laws that pretty much follow the logic of: "If you damage the merchandise, you have to buy it", commanding a rapist to marry his victim (because nobody else will touch such "spoiled goods"). Also, men are allowed to divorce their wives like discarding an old car, but the same does not apply vice versa.

Christianity: in spite of the egalitarianism found in many gospel passages, some of Paul's epistles (which may not be authentic, but ARE canonical, and thus have shaped Christianity) are unabashedly sexist, treating women as inferior beings in need of male rulership. Also, pretty much *all* the Church fathers were vocal misogynists. I can give you a very extensive list of quotes if you want.

Islam: A woman who refuses to comply to her husbands will is first to be reprimanded, then banished from the bedroom, and then beaten. Even if some insist that this "beating" ought to be only symbolic, the power dynamic embedded here is perfectly obvious: Man commands, woman obeys. The same does not apply vice versa. And again, you find the oversexualization and suppression of female sexuality, sometimes taken to extremes with stifling clothing, separate housing, a ban on riding bikes or driving cars unattended, wives walking a few steps behind their husbands and only eating their food once the male members of the household are finished, etc.

 

[MehGuy]

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure what touting around an impossible scenario is supposed to accomplish. There will never be a need for this technology, billions of heterosexual women are going to procreate with us men no matter what, lol.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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.

My question remains if Christianity is sexist in favor of men why is it so dominated by the presence of women in the churches ? Why would men that are supposedly favored by such a religion be the absent ones ? Logic would suggest that the oppressor would be more inclined to participate and the oppressed less inclined yet women far outnumber men. Do you, and the OP for that matter, suggest that a large number of women are natural masochists while the bulk of males are unwilling predators seeking to avoid the religious ceremonies and social gatherings that afford them a superior position over women?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Do you have female Ministers in your church?

Yes. Sorry it took so long to answer.

 

[LoAmmi]

Judaism: The Mosaic law includes rape laws that pretty much follow the logic of: "If you damage the merchandise, you have to buy it", commanding a rapist to marry his victim (because nobody else will touch such "spoiled goods").

The Talmud says that this only applied if the woman wanted it. Yes, you are correct, it's a bad concept of damaged goods, but it at least provided some protection if the woman would be unable to find a husband after. Not that he cannot divorce her for any reason which means should didn't have to live with him or even talk to him in any way. He would still have to take care of her regardless.

It is a problem but also a product of the time it was written in. Even if the text said not to treat women as property, it probably would not have worked. So the text at least tried to protect women who were assaulted. It isn't good but the motivation of it makes sense. There's a concept Maimonides put forward that had to do with sacrificing in that it was in the Torah because the people wouldn't accept a religion without it during that time. He believed that it wouldn't come back in the future because it wasn't necessary. I would apply that logic to this as I don't know of any Orthodox Jewish community that comes close to using this part of the Torah. If a woman is raped, the authorities are called as women are no longer valued as property in the culture.

Also, men are allowed to divorce their wives like discarding an old car, but the same does not apply vice versa.

Definitely a problem. The good news is that outside of the Orthodox, both genders can demand a divorce for any reason even, as you said, discarding them like a used car. I would like to see the Orthodox change as the text of the Torah doesn't say women cannot apply for a divorce.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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!

Does not seem to account for an oppressed person being the one more likely to voluntarily attend the services where they are being oppressed than their oppressor.

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).

This is an interesting idea. Why do you suppose men consider religion something that is associated with females? If it was something that was innately a sexist institution that assumed that females were inferior to them I would think men would associate it with masculinity and not with femininity? As for deodorant, I was under the impression that it was the females and not the males that were marketed to in that way as I recall a deodorant commercial aimed at women that made a point of the deodorant being specifically designed for a woman's chemistry. The commercial also seemed to assume that females were naturally submissive to men. The name of the deodorant was Secret and I found the commercial but I would be in violation of CF rules to post it as it is a commercial and therefore a solicitation to buy something so, from past experience with posting an ad for a political party I was making fun of, I know that even if I do not intend that anyone buy that deodorant or contribute to that political party and am only using it as an example of something it is still unacceptable to post it here.

 

[Zoness]

One reason is that authority over men doesn't speak of equality, but rather of function. The Bible doesn't defend the arrangrment of women in authority over men. Even the book of Judges, with Judge Deborah, even with Sarah telling Abraham to cast out the bondwoman, etc, does not set a precedent for the Bible being OK with that arrangement. Leadership was a masculine burden-- and, to this day, still is. Not just the power, but also the burden, the responsibility, and all the stress involved.

Would you say that a reasonable Biblical position is that women are not meant for leadership because they cannot bear the burden of responsibility and stress? I'm not asking for YOUR opinion on if this is true but rather if this position is reasonable from a Biblical perspective. Because I know a lot of people who take it and logically confer women to a status of inferiority of men because they're "weaker emotionally and physically".

 

[Zoness]

My question remains if Christianity is sexist in favor of men why is it so dominated by the presence of women in the churches ? Why would men that are supposedly favored by such a religion be the absent ones ? Logic would suggest that the oppressor would be more inclined to participate and the oppressed less inclined yet women far outnumber men. Do you, and the OP for that matter, suggest that a large number of women are natural masochists while the bulk of males are unwilling predators seeking to avoid the religious ceremonies and social gatherings that afford them a superior position over women?

I think this is simple: Most people period do not really understand Christian theology. I think many Christians here would agree that the state of Christian education is pretty abysmal and that most people only know what they do about Christianity due to their specific life experiences. Maybe you were raised in a church that avoided that discussion full stop or maybe your parents told you that the gender stuff was outmoded and nobody really follows it? I'm willing to bet that happens quite a bit. Christians often lament the "lukewarmness" of other Christians so I suspect it mostly stems for unfamiliarity for what the Bible actually says.

 

[bhsmte]

I think this is simple: Most people period do not really understand Christian theology. I think many Christians here would agree that the state of Christian education is pretty abysmal and that most people only know what they do about Christianity due to their specific life experiences. Maybe you were raised in a church that avoided that discussion full stop or maybe your parents told you that the gender stuff was outmoded and nobody really follows it? I'm willing to bet that happens quite a bit. Christians often lament the "lukewarmness" of other Christians so I suspect it mostly stems for unfamiliarity for what the Bible actually says.

I was a Christian for most of my life and it wasn't until I decided to study the theology that I began to realize, the theology was bankrupt from an individual accountability standpoint and was likely man made.

Furthermore, I believe it was the Gallup people who did a poll in general religious knowledge and the results were quite interesting. Atheists scored among the highest in religious knowledge and Evangelical Christians were near the bottom in knowledge.

 

[LoAmmi]

I was a Christian for most of my life and it wasn't until I decided to study the theology that I began to realize, the theology was bankrupt from an individual accountability standpoint and was likely man made.

Furthermore, I believe it was the Gallup people who did a poll in general religious knowledge and the results were quite interesting. Atheists scored among the highest in religious knowledge and Evangelical Christians were near the bottom in knowledge.

Do you know where this poll was? I'd be curious to see it and see what questions were asked.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you know where this poll was? I'd be curious to see it and see what questions were asked.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/

 

[LoAmmi]

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/

10 percent of Jews didn't know that the figure most associated with the Exodus from Egypt was Moses? Ha.

I got a 14 out of 15. I didn't know anything about "The First Great Awakening".

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, WOW, just because someone can make a case using the "bible" doesn't mean it is right. We can look at history concerning that, all kinds of wrong has been done by quoting "scripture" in the bible to say it means this or that. Oh, I disagree , so I must therefore be defying some saint of God. OR OR, it is simply the result of realizing that interpretation is nothing but corrupt poison.

So, saying I am railing against the apostles is pointless because even if all the supposed genius scholars and translators got it all right concerning what it ""says""", doesn't mean it is actually the correct way to live. And yes, for those that don't get it, I AM saying, if the "bible" does teach that men should have last say of authority over women, then it should simply be thrown in the trash.

What I am pointing out is the absurdity of a church environment specifically showing that males will rule over women in that environment and unfortunately there are women who will keep going to those environments ,then think something like allowing them to vote was actually a good thing.

There are actually very few passages which are unclear in Scriptures. So I don't accept that answer as valid. The Bible says God does not change. So unless you see the apostles' epistles as misleading, or a departure from the teachings of Christ, we obey them. Also, Paul never suggested in his epistles that women are second class citizens in the church. He laid out church roles and offices and the requirements for such. Applying the words of Christ to what Paul defines as church roles in his epistles puts women in the most honored position in the Kingdom of God:

Matthew 23:

11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.(NKJV)

 

[redleghunter]

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.

So you compare peeing standing up voiding a bladder as akin to giving birth to a child? You may want to talk to a priest about that.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Perhaps...She lost all those emails I sent her two years ago!

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps...She lost all those emails I sent her two years ago!

Maybe we can recover them from your end. Unless, you lost them too.

 

[redleghunter]

Maybe we can recover them from your end. Unless, you lost them too.

LOL

 

[jackcv]

General examples?
The cult of virginity, specifically female virginity.
The structure of traditional marriage. (As a contract between the husband and the father/older brother - only symbolically these days, but you can still tell where it comes from. Also, structuring the relationship in a way that hands exclusive authority to the husband, and demands the wife to obey and submit.)
Sexual double standards. (Traditionally, women are punished and ostracized much more harshly for promiscuity, even in cases where lip service is paid to a more egalitarian scheme.)
The need to penalize or even demonize sex, and the need to protect lines of heritage by suppressing female sexuality, specifically.

Specific examples:...

First of all, let me say that I agree with your premise that religion must flex with the times. That is why continuing revelation is critical, and all attempts to live without it are worse than mistaken, but actually foolish. With continuing revelation to living prophets, as well as to prayerful men, women and children whose ears are tuned to hear the still, small voice, the inequities (in-iquities) that you point to are possible to overcome - first individually, and then societally.

"The cult of virginity?" What is that? Do you have some objection to the commandments that men and women abstain from sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage, and remain faithful to their spouses (and by extension, to their children and society at large)?

"Marriage...a contract between the husband and the father/older brother." What a pitiful caricature you draw! Around the world extended families and their communities gather to witness a couple vow chastity and faithfulness for life, usually as an oath before the law and their God. This is a multifaceted covenant between a man, a woman, their families, their community, and a Higher Power. Legal, stable marriage establishes the fundamental unit of advanced, stable, safe, prosperous human society.

"The need to penalize or even demonize sex, and the need to protect lines of heritage by suppressing female sexuality?" Where do you find this in scripture?

At this point, Jane, your initial question and these specifics are empty hyperbole. Don't be offended, I've done the same thing myself. You need to do your homework. I have read the scriptures of several of the great world religions, and I say that you are off the mark in every case.

Many Christians and others rely heavily (sometimes exclusively) on various 2nd hand commentaries for their theology rather than feasting on the scriptures themselves. With the best of intentions, you have apparently fallen into the same trap. You have failed to cite a single scriptural source from any of the great world religions that you wish to criticize. I suggest that you cite chapter and verse in the Torah if you want Jews to take you seriously, the Koran, the Holy Bible and Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Teachings of Buddha, etc. so that believers can give your charges some credence and address them directly. LoAmmi is a pretty clear thinker, well versed in his faith (Judaism), and he is responding to you intelligently even without that courtesy. I think he is bending over backwards, and you cannot expect that.

By the way, to earn credibility, you need to find 2 or more scripture citations in any particular religion to support your criticism of that religion's position on any particular point. Not just one. In the Jewish and Christian faiths the principle is: in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established. I think you will find that principle in all of the great world religions. If an issue is important, it will be mentioned several times in their scriptures, not just once.

 

[awitch]

Perhaps...She lost all those emails I sent her two years ago!

If you think she's the only politician who uses unauthorized email then I'd like to sell you all of my bridges in Brooklyn.
(I'm offering a special discount only for white, male, persecuted Christians today.)

 

[redleghunter]

By the way, to earn credibility, you need to find 2 or more scripture citations in any particular religion to support your criticism of that religion's position on any particular point. Not just one. In the Jewish and Christian faiths the principle is: in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established. I think you will find that principle in all of the great world religions. If an issue is important, it will be mentioned several times in their scriptures, not just once.

Sage advice and agree. The above approach tends to limit the 'jigsaw puzzle' theology method and eisegesis. Good post.