Religion and Gender

[Jane_the_Bane]

The idea that this is a low position in life is nonsensical.

Well, let's see.
If you are told that you mustn't receive any higher education (because girls are supposed to be mothers, not [insert any profession here], and it would be a waste of time and resources);
if you are told that your husband gets to decide if you may work at a job you hold, and any money you earn is automatically his (because marriage means that you cease being a legal person in your own right);
if you are not allowed to vote (because women are too uneducated, innocent and pure to know what's good for them and the country);
or if you cannot sue a husband for raping you, because rape is legally defined as extra-marital
then yes, you ARE a second-class citizen.

And let's not make the mistake of pretending that this kind of thing has been history for ages.
In Germany, it took until the early 1970s before women were legally granted the right to keep control of their own wages, and until the late 1990s (!!!) before rape in marriage became a crime.

There was a time when some feminists (particularly of the second wave) treated every self-determined housewife and mother like a traitor to the cause. Which, frankly, is just as nonsensical as declaring every woman in pursuit of a career a traitor to motherhood.
The point of all this campaigning is to give women the CHOICE. And it tells you a lot about the resilient sexism underlying our society that most predominantly female professions (nurse, child care worker, primary school teacher, cleaner, etc.) are woefully underpaid, while housework and raising your kids remains a completely unrewarded job in a society where wages not only determine your ability to survive, but also your social status.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, let's see.
If you are told that you mustn't receive any higher education (because girls are supposed to be mothers, not [insert any profession here], and it would be a waste of time and resources);
if you are told that your husband gets to decide if you may work at a job you hold, and any money you earn is automatically his (because marriage means that you cease being a legal person in your own right);
if you are not allowed to vote (because women are too uneducated, innocent and pure to know what's good for them and the country);
or if you cannot sue a husband for raping you, because rape is legally defined as extra-marital
then yes, you ARE a second-class citizen.

Isn't that just nonsensical then?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Isn't that just nonsensical then?

Of course it is. And it was the status quo until quite recently. Chances are that most of us who discuss here lived in such barbaric times.

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On

To Not Flame each other
If your post has been removed, it was either in violation or quoting another post that was. Please remember the no-flaming rule of the forum and to stay on topic to the original topic. Please treat each other with respect, including during debates.

Here are CF's rules:
http://www.christianforums.com/help/rules/

Further issues with this thread may result in further cleans, a permanent shut down, and member staff actions.
Carry On​

 

[Cearbhall]

The idea that this is a low position in life is nonsensical.

It shouldn't be, but some people have made it out to be over the centuries.

 

[Poppyseed78]

To my understanding, the Christian biblical delineation of roles within a marriage does not imply that women are of less value than men. Some people within some religions believe that men are superior and should act that way, but this is not the way Christ taught his disciples to be. My husband and I talk to each other as equal partners in the relationship and make decisions together. We feel this is the way Christ is guiding us to practice our marriage.

I believe that men and women are inherently different, but equally loved and valued by God. Like someone said earlier in the thread, this isn't a rationalization for inequality. They are made differently, both physically and emotionally, and it's silly to deny that. It doesn't make sense to make the leap from that, to where women are treated as property, which, I believe, is wrong and completely at odds with Jesus' teachings. While women can do a lot of things men can do, I don't think it is necessarily worth aspiring to be "like a man," since men are human and thus prone to sin. I DO believe women should have the opportunity to pursue any goal or career they want, but not just for the sake of being "like a man".

This is one criticism I have of the women's sexual liberation movement. Women behaving like men - that is, having casual sex without consequence - does not strike me as a healthy or beneficial goal. I'm not shaming women here; I don't think anyone should be doing this, regardless of gender. This is just one example where "equality" is not necessarily a good thing. It's more important to be discerning of what's good and right, and do that. Having the freedom to have casual sex, without social stigma, might make women feel they have reached equal footing to men, but to me this is a false freedom, and ultimately, it is not without consequence.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The discussion on sexual liberty, while certainly worthwhile and very close to my heart, does not have much of a place on these forums. I would like to pursue the topic further, but am quite sure that this would lead to my reply or even the whole thread being deleted or closed down.

However, I do think it is possible to tackle some of the elements here without shirking the rules:
It would be a grave mistake to assume that the pursuit of gender equality has got anything to do with "being like men".
If anything, the whole purpose of gender equality is to point out just how many privileges (and I'm not talking about sexual libertinage here) have been defined as "exclusively male", when in fact they are nothing of the sort. To this day, women in leadership positions are perceived as "bossy", "unlikeable", etc. - simply because gender bias associates these position with men, and considers the behavioural patterns associated with leadership to be "male". Here is a nice article on that phenomenon, written by an economist.
Many male privileges (exclusive access to higher education, the right to vote, etc.) have already been dismantled and opened up to women as well, but even the people who campaigned for these were once perceived as "trying to be like men, unfeminine and unbecoming".

Also, there is a reason why nobody bats an eye at a woman in "male" clothing, but a man in women's clothing immediately becomes an object of derision, mirth and contempt - and it's not (just) the wrong proportions. Femininity is (subtly or not so subtly) defined as inferior. A man in "female" clothing "demeans himself" by dressing beneath his social status.

As for the biological differences: the physiological gap between men and women is of no more consequence than the one between, say, Africans and Caucasians. You may even show statistics that reveal how some ethnicities fare better in certain areas (people of Jewish origin tend to fare well in the intellectual sphere, certain African regions produce superb runners, etc.), yet we all recognize that racism is a dead-end street. Sadly, most people do not recognize the same when it comes to sexism.

Gender roles may not appear in a vacuum, but that does not render them any less arbitrary. Comparisons between different cultures reveal just how much of what we consider "naturally male/maturally female" is in fact just a social construct.
And there is no reason not to allow a boy to play with dolls (if he wants to), or to forbid a girl from swinging a lightsaber (if that's what she likes).

 

[Cearbhall]

However, I do think it is possible to tackle some of the elements here without shirking the rules:
It would be a grave mistake to assume that the pursuit of gender equality has got anything to do with "being like men".

I will say that there's an aspect to it wherein the ultimate achievement is having masculine qualities. The degree to which a woman is liberated is still evaluated by a measuring stick of masculine achievements. "She wears the pants." "She's the boss." "That story has strong female characters." The best thing a person can be, apparently, is powerful and dominant, rather than cooperative and nurturing. Mainstream society says that women are allowed to be like men, because who wouldn't want to be a man? But men aren't allowed to be like women, because who would want to be a woman?

But, IMHO, that has a lot to do with capitalism. Everyone is in competition by necessity. You thrive by getting ahead of others rather than by helping each other out. If you aren't succeeding financially, you might find yourself without things like healthcare. It's a male-mindset system.

 

[Paidiske]

Certainly women who want to "succeed" (I've written it like that because definitions of success are also arbitrary) in traditionally masculine fields will often need to act like the men to manage it. One of the thing some of my peers and I have noted is that, even in a diocese where the ordination of women is mostly not very controversial, we tend to get the least flack where we dress the way men do - in pants, flat shoes and with a minimum of accessorising. Now you might say that's just sensible and a part of me would agree (a part of me is very happy to opt out of high heels!) but the fact that a priest who dresses in a "feminine" way can find that held against her is very troubling.

But for us a big part of that is to do with women still being seen as sexual objects by default. I've had a man tell me to my face that he opposes women in ministry because our knees are distracting. (I note here that I doubt he's ever seen my knees). So it's almost as if we have to camouflage our sex in order for men to get past that and listen to what we're saying!

 

[faroukfarouk]

"She wears the pants."

Actually I think that pants can be very womanly. My wife wears them almost all the time. I think the expression is kind of curious!

 

[Poppyseed78]

I will say that there's an aspect to it wherein the ultimate achievement is having masculine qualities. The degree to which a woman is liberated is still evaluated by a measuring stick of masculine achievements. "She wears the pants." "She's the boss." "That story has strong female characters." The best thing a person can be, apparently, is powerful and dominant, rather than cooperative and nurturing. Mainstream society says that women are allowed to be like men, because who wouldn't want to be a man? But men aren't allowed to be like women, because who would want to be a woman?

But, IMHO, that has a lot to do with capitalism. Everyone is in competition by necessity. You thrive by getting ahead of others rather than by helping each other out. If you aren't succeeding financially, you might find yourself without things like healthcare. It's a male-mindset system.

That's a good point. Anytime feminine traits are used to describe a man, it's definitely not a compliment.

I find the "lean in" movement for women interesting. I think in many ways it can do more harm than good, because women put unnecessary pressure on themselves to be perfect both at home and at work. But it's just impossible to put in 100% effort everywhere, and eventually something is compromised in the process.

 

[faroukfarouk]

That's a good point. Anytime feminine traits are used to describe a man, it's definitely not a compliment.

I find the "lean in" movement for women interesting. I think in many ways it can do more harm than good, because women put unnecessary pressure on themselves to be perfect both at home and at work. But it's just impossible to put in 100% effort everywhere, and eventually something is compromised in the process.

FYI, on another thread, someone says that in her martial arts dogo, there are actually more women than men.

 

[Paidiske]

Most of the comment I've seen on the "lean in" movement is that it's all very well for women to be told to do more at work, but where are the people telling their husbands to "lean in" at home so that we can be freed up to focus on work?

I can only be the breadwinner because my husband is willing to put his career on the back burner while our daughter is little. But how many men are willing to do that?

 

[Poppyseed78]

Most of the comment I've seen on the "lean in" movement is that it's all very well for women to be told to do more at work, but where are the people telling their husbands to "lean in" at home so that we can be freed up to focus on work?

I can only be the breadwinner because my husband is willing to put his career on the back burner while our daughter is little. But how many men are willing to do that?

Yes!! Men should be pulling their weight at home too. I'm not a fan of the idea that taking care of the kids and the home is "women's work". If they are your kids, and you live in the house, you have to take care of them too.

 

[MehGuy]

Yet when some of us men do choose to exhibit more traditional feminine qualities we often get chewed out by those very same feminists. They tell us to express our problems and show more emotion and when we do just that we are often receive nefarious comments like "boo hoo" and "male tears" and other language that is pretty much telling us to "man up" and go back to our previous gender roles.

Not to mention many men worry about being viewed as sexually appealing to other women as mates, and many are not buying the shallow sentiments that men need to take on more traditionally feminine qualities.

 

[Poppyseed78]

Yet when some of us men do choose to exhibit more traditional feminine qualities we often get chewed out by those very same feminists. They tell us to express our problems and show more emotion and when we do just that we are often receive nefarious comments like "boo hoo" and "male tears" and other language that is pretty much telling us to "man up" and go back to our previous gender roles.

Not to mention many men worry about being viewed as sexually appealing to other women as mates, and many are not buying the shallow sentiments that men need to take on more traditionally feminine qualities.

Unfortunately, it's so socially ingrained that men have to act "macho" that people react poorly when a man doesn't fit into that macho mold.

 

[Paidiske]

Not to mention many men worry about being viewed as sexually appealing to other women as mates, and many are not buying the shallow sentiments that men need to take on more traditionally feminine qualities.

So you think that women say one thing, but deep down, really want a guy who's only one foot out of the cave, sexually speaking?

I'm not sure I agree, (my husband won my heart for the way he cared for me when I was sick), but then, I'm only a sample of one...

 

[faroukfarouk]

Unfortunately, it's so socially ingrained that men have to act "macho" that people react poorly when a man doesn't fit into that macho mold.

My wife and I have talked a great deal about this. I think that if one studies character in the New Testament, the macho thing is far from the deeper picture. There are definite genders there in the New Testament, but I would question the macho stuff.

 

[MehGuy]

So you think that women say one thing, but deep down, really want a guy who's only one foot out of the cave, sexually speaking?

For the most part, yeah.

I'm not sure I agree, (my husband won my heart for the way he cared for me when I was sick), but then, I'm only a sample of one...

A man nurturing a woman is manly. Many male feminists make that quite a virtue because you know they're so progressive and stuff. Men nurturing other men or wanting to be nurtured themselves.. not so much.

 

[Robban]

Yes!! Men should be pulling their weight at home too. I'm not a fan of the idea that taking care of the kids and the home is "women's work". If they are your kids, and you live in the house, you have to take care of them too.

What has it to do with you what arrangement a couple have agreed on,

The trouble is there are too many busybodies, they think they know what is best for others.