Religion and Gender

[juvenissun]

Is this the universally held position within the Baptist church?
We've already heard that Lutherans see this *very* differently, so claiming this is the default position "in Christianity" is a rather spurious claim.

This is said in Genesis 2.

How does a Lutheran say it differently?

 

[Hetta]

As most religions that are practiced today were created in the Agrarian age, they tend to reflect the dominant gender roles and relationship models associated with that particular era in global history:
A patriarchal family, with husbands and fathers in a position of uncontested authority, and women in a subservient role that is more or less confined to the role of motherhood and housework.
The need to repress and control female sexuality in particular was also strongly embedded in most societies (and hence, in the religions that arose in the same), as inheritance lines, limited means of birth control and the absence of paternity tests meant that there was virtually no other way to ensure that a man was raising his own children within this arrangement.

Even seemingly egalitarian world views such as Buddhism cannot quite shake their historical and cultural context.
And younger religions such as Wicca (which are often even seen as feminist) communicate very stereotypical and traditional gender conceptions in their concept of the Mother and the Horned God.

There were some exceptions to this rule - such as *very* early Christianity and its radical egalitarianism, which started to fade as soon as female emancipation became associated with Gnosticism.

And - here's where this discussion starts - even these traditional religions have sometimes tried to outgrow their cultural baggage, particularly within the last two hundred years.
So - how does your particular religion or denomination address the topic of gender? Are women still expected to be housewives and mothers, first and foremost? Can they serve in clerical roles? Are men treated as superior (whether openly or through the traditional "equal but different"-rationalization), or do partners genuinely enjoy equality?

I don't have a denomination anymore, but I have been a member of both a UMC and a Presbyterian church. I've also visited many other churches. I found these two churches to be quite liberal in their treatment of gender. Both men and women could be Deacons and Elders, which traditionally are roles reserved to men. Both denoms also allow women leaders/pastors. This said, it was particularly noticeable that the majority of SS teachers with women, and the majority of VBS was run by women. OTOH, the leaders of youth groups were typically male. It's kind of like ... it's okay to let the women teach the little ones, but the older ones need a man's hand. Which is patronizing and then some. But as for overall attitudes towards gender roles, that wasn't particularly being taught in sermons although "Mother's Day Out" still exists, which assumes that most women are stay at home moms. Women were also expected to bring in the potluck dishes, that I remember. I don't really understand the concept of "breakfast casseroles." This remains foreign to me even after 13 years in this country. So my husband actually prepared the breakfast casserole, but he was the only husband to ever bring in the crockpot for that particular "meal." But yes, I guess I'm seeing that gender roles were still quite the norm, even though the outward message was that women were equal to men in the hierarchy of the church.

 

[Hetta]

Equal but different is not a rationalization,the left leg is as important as the right hand but they certainly do different things "equality" has come to mean receiving the same rewards for different reponsabilities...men have traditionally been expected to do certain things for which they receive certain rewards or priviledges,things such a military service and dying in wars,women have also died but far less and rarely because they were drafted or placed in combat,equality in this case would be a draft for women or at least being required to sign up with selective service,both of which are predictably unpopular....a society often gives the most to who it expects the most from.

Have you served? Were you called up? I'm guessing no to both. It's easy to talk about combat and dying in war when you've done neither. Typically those who haven't done it and are now safe from having to do it think that everyone else should do it. That said, if I was still a young woman and required to sign up for selective service, I would. Two of my three sons have done it, and one has voluntarily joined the Army and is going through AIT right now. My youngest son isn't old enough yet. If my daughters had to, they would too. Their father served so they don't really think anything of it. However, there are plenty of young men who resent signing up for selective service. They're not unpatriotic, they just don't think they should have to be called upon or should have to die for some politician's war. I agree with them. My fathers, grandfathers, uncles and cousins were embroiled directly in two world wars, right in the middle of the European battlefield. Many of them died in that arena. If they were able to tell you something, I'm sure they'd say that they'd rather have lived out their lives, married, had children, and got to enjoy the freedom that most westerners take for granted. I don't believe at all that it's a "brave and fitting thing to die for one's country" but rather a horrible outcome of power-mad politicians.

 

[awitch]

I has an envy. My daughter is a real princess girl, and I kinda wanted a tomboy.
She'll play with dinosaurs sometimes but as for space, not no how, even though I've bought her some really cool space toys, toys I would have killed for when I was a kid. But the following conversation about what she wants to be when she grows up ,is a quote...

Me: ...you could even be an astronaut! Her: Yuk! Only boys can be astronauts! M: No, girls can be astronauts too! H: Well I wouldn't be one anyway, they get eaten by aliens. M: I don't think that happens very often... H: Of COURSE it does Daddy, thats why we never see any astronauts when we go to the shops, they've all been eaten by aliens!

How am I meant to argue with that?

My daughter likes the princess stuff too, but she just also likes Star Wars, and does co-ed wrestling and flag football. About a year ago she was wearing a tshirt with a diagram of the moon on it while at the Hayden planetarium and Neil DeGrasse Tyson walked over to say that he liked it. (I can't believe I missed that)

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

As most religions that are practiced today were created in the Agrarian age, they tend to reflect the dominant gender roles and relationship models associated with that particular era in global history:
A patriarchal family, with husbands and fathers in a position of uncontested authority, and women in a subservient role that is more or less confined to the role of motherhood and housework.
The need to repress and control female sexuality in particular was also strongly embedded in most societies (and hence, in the religions that arose in the same), as inheritance lines, limited means of birth control and the absence of paternity tests meant that there was virtually no other way to ensure that a man was raising his own children within this arrangement.

Even seemingly egalitarian world views such as Buddhism cannot quite shake their historical and cultural context.
And younger religions such as Wicca (which are often even seen as feminist) communicate very stereotypical and traditional gender conceptions in their concept of the Mother and the Horned God.

There were some exceptions to this rule - such as *very* early Christianity and its radical egalitarianism, which started to fade as soon as female emancipation became associated with Gnosticism.

And - here's where this discussion starts - even these traditional religions have sometimes tried to outgrow their cultural baggage, particularly within the last two hundred years.
So - how does your particular religion or denomination address the topic of gender? Are women still expected to be housewives and mothers, first and foremost? Can they serve in clerical roles? Are men treated as superior (whether openly or through the traditional "equal but different"-rationalization), or do partners genuinely enjoy equality?

Most Christians fall into three views on the matter

1. Complementarianism , the view that men and women are equal , but that they express that equality in different ways , that complement each other , contrary to what sceptics say , this view is not veiled patriarchy, as it ( generally ) supports equal pay , women having jobs , more female representatives in a parliament etc .
Yes it doesn't support women clergy , but because of theology, not because it thinks of women as inferior

2. Egalitarianism ( the view of many Lutherans including myself ) the view that because men and women are equal , there should be no gener roles imposed , in or outside the church

3. Feminism the view that goes farther then the first two , in sometimes using feminine language for God

( patriarchy was always a fringe position within the church )

 

[Armoured]

Most Christians fall into three views on the matter

1. Complementarianism , the view that men and women are equal , but that they express that equality in different ways , that complement each other , contrary to what sceptics say , this view is not veiled patriarchy, as it ( generally ) supports equal pay , women having jobs , more female representatives in a parliament etc .
Yes it doesn't support women clergy , but because of theology, not because it thinks of women as inferior

2. Egalitarianism ( the view of many Lutherans including myself ) the view that because men and women are equal , there should be no gener roles imposed , in or outside the church

3. Feminism the view that goes farther then the first two , in sometimes using feminine language for God

( patriarchy was always a fringe position within the church )

Your definition of feminism needs work.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Most Christians fall into three views on the matter

1. Complementarianism , the view that men and women are equal , but that they express that equality in different ways , that complement each other , contrary to what sceptics say , this view is not veiled patriarchy, as it ( generally ) supports equal pay , women having jobs , more female representatives in a parliament etc .
Yes it doesn't support women clergy , but because of theology, not because it thinks of women as inferior

2. Egalitarianism ( the view of many Lutherans including myself ) the view that because men and women are equal , there should be no gener roles imposed , in or outside the church

3. Feminism the view that not only are women and men are equal before God , and deserve equal rights many go farther then the first two , in sometimes ( ok many times ) using feminine language for God ,

( patriarchy was always a fringe position within the church )

 

[Polytheists/Witch]

In my tradition which is Norse/Germanic polytheism, there are roles but no one is inferior. There are forms of magic and skills that might be taboo or were but those have changed over time. Spinning was once only female and men never did that. Those restrictions are not in place today. A guy who spins yarn would not get called names or be ostracized. Women didn't do galdr, but most who work with runes learn that male or female. Some have strict roles but I find them to be sections that are racists or lore heavy. They are like fundamental Christians that see the lore and old ways as unchangeable.

 

[Paidiske]

When does a mother finish being a mother?

Well, in my case, never, unless my daughter dies before me, I guess.

But at what point does being a mother stop limiting or interfering with my potential to do other things? I'd say, probably when the last child is weaned. Because after that anyone can do the hands-on caring and parenting needed, and those responsibilities can be shared (and in our family, my husband does more of it than I do).

So: time from conception to weaning? Somewhat less than two years, in my experience. Let's say two years per child. Even accepting your argument that most women need to have two or three children, we're talking about, at most, six years or so of the woman's life where study, work, and social involvement might be significantly limited by being a mother.

Given that my life expectancy is sitting at about 82 years, that leaves me 76 years where I can do just about anything! Ok, take out the 18 years before adulthood and I'm still left with 58 years, where I am a functioning adult not limited by being a mother.

Now, tell me why, in those 58 or so years, I should sit on the sidelines of life, instead of finding whatever ways I can to contribute to the benefit of those around me?

OP, the only quibble I would have with your post is with the idea that confining women to childbearing and housework is an agrarian-society thing. I think it's more of an industrial-revolution thing, and that before that women often worked as hard alongside men in farming.

 

[Hieronymus]

Now, tell me why, in those 58 or so years, I should sit on the sidelines of life, instead of finding whatever ways I can to contribute to the benefit of those around me?

Who said you should?

 

[Paidiske]

The implication of motherhood being the most important thing I can do, and one which somehow defines me, is that other things are less important or not to be pursued. (You may not have meant this, but I have certainly seen/heard other people make similar arguments; for example, that I shouldn't be in ministry because it's impossible to be a good priest and a good mother at the same time!)

So I was pointing out that the proportion of my life in which I am defined or in some way limited by motherhood is really very small, and leaves me with plenty of time to devote myself to other things, without that being in any way a problem. (And even then, that's only if you accept the idea that we should all be having children, which I find rather suspect).

 

[Hieronymus]

The implication of motherhood being the most important thing I can do, and one which somehow defines me, is that other things are less important

Probably (i.m.o.)

or not to be pursued.

It shouldn't interfere with motherhood i.m.o.

 

[awitch]

Probably (i.m.o.)It shouldn't interfere with motherhood i.m.o.

Can you elaborate on the details of what interference entails?

 

[Zoness]

When I practiced in a ritual group, it was about 70/30 men to women. Though that was just demographic happenstance, gender didn't really play into the group because it was just assumed that women were just as capable as men and just as important to the gods. There's no arbitrary limitations on religious roles like in Catholicism (my birth religion) or other faiths that I have experience with.

I'm a solitary practitioner now so the gender stuff is even less relevant because its just me, but the hedge witch that I get supplies from is one of the wisest women I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.

 

[MehGuy]

I grew up under various non-denominational churches. Traditional gender roles were never really stressed.

My father was more traditionalist than the churches we went too ironically, but thankfully was never really forceful about it. I never bought into them, nor desired them.

Women should be able to occupy any religious position a man can, and if they cannot perhaps they should think about switching religions/denominations.

 

[Robban]

I don,t know if this has anything to do with the thread, but there must be something to it .

 

[mmksparbud]

The very first recorded feminists who went before Moses to complain and caused God Himself to change a law. Up until then, if a man died without a male heir, the daughters could not inherit.
Num 27:3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.
Num 27:4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
Num 27:5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.
Num 27:6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 27:7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.
Num 27:8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

 

[Cearbhall]

So - how does your particular religion or denomination address the topic of gender?

From the Unitarian Universalist Association website:

We are a welcoming faith. Unitarian Universalism doesn’t just open its doors to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities—we value diversity of sexuality and gender and see this diversity as a profound spiritual gift.

Also:

Gender is complex and multi-faceted. In North American culture several distinct facets of ourselves get lumped together when we talk about “gender”:

• Biological sex: attributes such as anatomy, chromosomes, and hormones that is usually assigned at birth and inform whether a person is male, female, or intersex.
• Gender identity: An individual’s internal sense of being a man, a woman, neither of these, both, and so on—it is one’s inner sense of being and one’s own understanding of how one relates to the gender binary. With the exception of agender people, who often do not have an internal sense of gender, most people have a gender identity.
• Gender expression: the ways in which a person manifests masculinity, femininity, both, or neither through appearance, behavior, dress, speech patterns, preferences, and more.

The cultural expectation is that one’s biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression will align in stereotypical ways: that someone who is male will identify as a boy/man and have a masculine gender expression, for example. This expectation does not serve our diverse world and the myriad experiences of self that exist.

 

[Paidiske]

<Staff Edit>

The thing to realise is that there are different strands of feminist thought. Some are clearly not compatible with Christianity. Some are (I consider myself both a feminist and a Christian, but I have - for example - had some people say I cannot be anti-abortion and a feminist. I just disagree with them about the boundaries of feminism). In the same way, it is possible to construct a Muslim strand of feminism. I am not overly familiar with that school of thought, but I have met Muslim feminists and respect the work they're doing within their own tradition.

Fundamentally, a feminist is just someone who believes men and women are equal and should be treated as such. Many of us realise that this is not yet reality (which certainly came home to me with the way I was treated when I was pregnant). After that, we differ on plenty about how that should be worked out in practice.

On another forum where I participate (a parenting one rather than a Christian one, so much more secular overall), there's a current discussion running on how different people understand feminism. Interestingly, much of the discussion there revolves around economic aspects of our society and how workplaces end up governing people's lives in really unhelpful ways. That's a discussion to which Christianity could make a positive contribution - to do with the place of work in human identity and a healthy life - but we can't do that if we absent ourselves from the discussion altogether.

There's amazing diversity in feminism, and it just goes to demonstrate that trying to treat feminist thought or practice as a monolith really is inaccurate and, eventually, dishonest.

 

[Paidiske]

Hi, I'm Paidiske. I'm a feminist who is not misandrist, who quotes Christ rather than Dworkin, who seeks to build up rather than ruin society, and whose hair is its natural brown (with a few artificial highlights to camouflage the encroaching gray). Oh, and I don't shriek.

Now that the stereotype's been dismissed, can we talk about real issues in society?