In religion, women are second-class.

[TimCallahan]

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

[Sun Countess]

Simple. Religions were invented by men.

[arthwollipot]

Hm. Maybe. I'd say that societies in general have a tendency to be patriarchal, due to the women being "forced" to raise children. Men also have a tendency to react to challenges with violence, thus demonstrating direct power over rivals. Politically, some of these rivals may have been women, who were less inclined to use violence. So men rose to the top through the exercise of brute power.
[/rampant speculation]

[Chupacabras]

I think the subject deserves a better deliberation, but in short I think religion is a mechanism of control, and males tend to be dominant across cultures. So relegating women to "lesser" or no roles is a manifestation of the status quo.

IMHO

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Why do you think these things?
I mean, historically or present day.
What is the definition of "second place"
Examples?

Just asking..

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Why do you think these things?
I meant historically or present day.
What is the definition of "second place"
Examples?

Just asking..

Women cannot be priests (etc.) in many christian religions (more specifically, they are prohibited from performing the rites of mass). It was basically dictated by Paul and held as sacrosanct despite Jesus never having mentioned anything remotely like this.

Islam? (Which is considered an Abrahamic religion.) Burqas. Need I say more. Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm with you on the Burqas.
And I understand where you are coming from with priests (however that seems to be changing in a lot of Christian churches isn't it?).

I guess I am talking about how the OP relates in today's society for the most of us (whether we practice religion or not). Do we still put women in "second place" - most (all?) western countries have anti discrimination laws don't they?

Or are we talking about the historical perspective- it seems to me there is a pretty big difference between the two.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Simple. Religions were invented by men.

Silly, god's a man.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

I'm with you on the Burqas.
And I understand where you are coming from with priests (however that seems to be changing in a lot of Christian churches isn't it?).

I guess I am talking about how the OP relates in today's society for the most of us (whether we practice religion or not). Do we still put women in "second place" - most (all?) western countries have anti discrimination laws don't they?

Or are we talking about the historical perspective- it seems to me there is a pretty big difference between the two.

Women's status in society and religion has definitely progressed over the millenia. Yes, more and more christian sects are accepting equality of their female congregations in both general and participatory senses. But this is definitely not the case for Roman Catholicisim as of yet - too much dogmatic history I think (and a patriarchal beginning in Rome). No budging on this to date.

It appears that the more secular and technological a society becomes the more these disparities melt away. This is not total yet - the US still has a modicum of disparity as well as Japan. But we're getting there. We saw this in Iran and Iraq for a while. So that sort of bolsters the notion that particular religious ideas when predominant in a society can put women into a second-class position. Wincing as I type this: New Age crapola is actually more conducive as a somewhat religious system which is much less gender-centric (though women might be more empowered in this circumstance).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Recently on the college channel here discussing ancient artwork, the professor noted fertility was the original deity power.

Ancient religions had more female deities and the ability to bear children was considered the most sacred thing.

Then men figured out they actually played a role in procreation and they quit revering women.


According to the professor, I've not verified this independently.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

I think you are correct, or at least from the perspective of a society that states that men and women should have equal rights even if culturally this is not the case.

My completely speculative view is that this is probably because religions tend to (at least initially) match the society they arise in or are adapted to fit an existing society if they are imported.

[mist]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

Islam? (Which is considered an Abrahamic religion.) Burqas. Need I say more. Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.

Actually, muslims see the burqa as a way to free women. Because with them women can't be identified or sexually lusted by men. Though the net result is the same.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by mist

Actually, muslims see the burqa as a way to free women. Because with them women can't be identified or sexually lusted by men. Though the net result is the same.

Nets?

What? To catch them?

[CriticalSock]

Originally Posted by mist

Actually, muslims see the burqa as a way to free women. Because with them women can't be identified or sexually lusted by men. Though the net result is the same.

That argument enrages me! It is breathtakingly misandrist for a start. But the real issue, for me, is that it is the classic reasoning of the abuser. "It's for your own good."

"I'm going to physically restrict you and identify you as a chattle rather than a human being, while at the same time performing a propaganda role for my hateful religion, but don't worry! It's for your own good."

Mind you, if anyone actually wants to wear it (not just through bullying and social conditioning), then they should be allowed to do so. The UKIP's manifesto promise to ban the burka from British streets encroaches just as much on individuals free will.

[Hallo Alfie]

Just to play DA for a minute.
You talk of social conditioning - might not those women in Burqas see our western women as being exploited as chattels and/or being objectified by their men, in wearing (say) bikini's, skimpy clothes etc, through social conditioning?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Just to play DA for a minute.
You talk of social conditioning - might not those women in Burqas see our western women as being exploited as chattels and/or being objectified by their men, in wearing (say) bikini's, skimpy clothes etc, through social conditioning?

Yes. And I think they have a point. It seems to me that western culture is in a period of transition as regards gender equality. We have yet to come to any coherent position. For now the best we can do is to allow more individual choice and try to see the consequences of those choices in all their messy complexity. We won't know for a while, I think

[LightningStrike]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

To really love a woman man has to surrender his self to love, man does not like doing this.
Love is good everyone knows that, but to stay in love requires both man and woman self to die regularly for love. This is real woman's natural way, she loves love and loves being loved. Man knows subconsciously that to become one with his love he will have to give up something he holds very dear.

In a sense there is God out of existence which for man is Truth and in truth there is no love. Truth is cold like the blue winter sky, brilliant in it's absence of warmth. When that appears in existence it appears as love, then there is God in existence as Love. Woman is Love or God in existence.

Religions are ignorant of this truth that sets man and woman free. Celibacy is encouraged because man is afraid to really love woman and die for love.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

...snip....

Islam? (Which is considered an Abrahamic religion.) Burqas. Need I say more. Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.

The burqas supports what I was saying, the burqas although adopted by some strands if Islam is really a cultural phenomenon that has been adopted by the religious and their religion.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Recently on the college channel here discussing ancient artwork, the professor noted fertility was the original deity power.

Ancient religions had more female deities and the ability to bear children was considered the most sacred thing.

Then men figured out they actually played a role in procreation and they quit revering women.


According to the professor, I've not verified this independently.

I'm not sure they were that different, actually.

Childbearing being "sacred" appears in Christianity too, for example. 1 Timothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." You could think God thinks pretty highly of that if he's going to grant an extra salvation chance for that alone. Well, that is, you could think that _if_ somehow you landed directly at 2:15 and managed to miss the bigotted mysoginism of the previous verses.

Don't confuse the lip service to the role you're relegated to, with actual worship, basically.

But were the other major ancient cultures that different?

E.g., the Athenians for example paid major lip service to Athena, the goddess of wisdom and learning. You'd think they appreciate a woman's intellect, right? In practice a woman, regardless of class and status, was not even permitted to talk in court in her own defense. 'Cause they're too dumb for that, see? And, again, I'm not even talking about becoming a lawyer or a judge, but what we'd now consider the basic human right to defend oneself. If you had a husband or father, he'd do the talking for you, 'cause he's a man and all. If not, only the other side would do all the talking.

E.g., a lot of tribal cultures were described as matriarchal... by ultra-patriarchal Europeans in the Renaissance and then Victorian era. In practice those had no qualms with stuff like kidnapping women and raping them, and in fact it was a major reason for raiding each other. And virtually all decisions were taken by men anyway. But they let their women talk back! Even in public! Why, that's almost like being ruled by women! They're that uncivilized and savage, that they don't even know how to put their women in their place, see? Thank goodness we Europeans were around to civilize them

As for childbearing, I'd say that the realization that men are involved too, came pretty early. At the latest, when animal husbandry entered the scene. Even in more primitive cultures, virtually all did figure out there is _some_ link between sex and pregnancy. Even if for some it wasn't a clear cause-effect relationship, but more of a case of "sex helps too". I mean, heck, some tribes even figured out contraception. They're smart humans too.

And from there it was just a small step towards the more mainstream ancient world view that the man provides all the seed, and the woman is just a sort of flower pot where it grows. Well, in the civilized parts at least. That idea was so hard to let go that in 1694 someone even invented seeing little homunculi in the sperm cells under a microscope, and some even argued that they observed behaviours in the homunculi or animaliculi in those cells. And the resulting spermist theory would be the dominant theory during the 18'th century.

But it wasn't invented then. For an earlier description of the same theory (minus the microscope part, of course), see, for example, Pythagoras. Same idea: the father contributes the parts that count, while the mother just contributes a mere material substrate, much like a pot contributes to a flower.

So, anyway, sure they acted all in awe of childbearing, because they wanted offspring and even more importantly they wanted sex. They had to pack that "that's your role, woman" in some mystical and religious (and occasionally philosophical) mumbo-jumbo, lest those gals started asking "why?"

Basically, if I started acting all in awe of the woman's ability to cook food, it might just mean I want her to cook me a meal

[CriticalSock]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Just to play DA for a minute.
You talk of social conditioning - might not those women in Burqas see our western women as being exploited as chattels and/or being objectified by their men, in wearing (say) bikini's, skimpy clothes etc, through social conditioning?

Yes. Not the chattels so much, but definitely the objectifying. I'm a bloke so I kind of like having everything from ham to shampoo sold to me with cleavage and smiles, but when I see my sister (who is generally level headed and intelligent) getting upset because she's comparing herself to the scalpel sculpted stick insects... Then I feel shame for my species.

But! Two wrongs don't make a right!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Might i suggest the disorganised religion Wicca?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Might i suggest the disorganised religion Wicca?

That also seems to support my speculations - wicca is a new religion and what do we find? It treats women as equals (at least) just like the culture it has arisen in.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Darat

The burqas supports what I was saying, the burqas although adopted by some strands if Islam is really a cultural phenomenon that has been adopted by the religious and their religion.

That in some places it's illegal to go without also puts the lie to the real nature of it.

[Hallo Alfie]

I heard about a woman that went and saw her spiritual guide (I will leave the specific religion out of the story, lest I harm the innocent). Let's call her Judy.
Anyway Judy's husband (we will call him Punch) was apparently abusive, had anger management problems and was a suspected alcoholic.

Judy complained to her guide that she was getting beaten black and blue regularly by Punch, and showed the evidence to support it.

Her advisor thought about this for a while and recommended camomile tea. Not for him, but for her.
"Before anything else: take it every time he comes home, as soon as he wakes etc, and gargle it. Gargle and gargle and gargle, when you are done gargling, gargle some more".

After two weeks Judy returned to her guide filled with joy and gratitude and said:

"It works!
I don't know how or why, but it works!
He hasn't so much as laid a glove in me in a fortnight - in fact he has stopped drinking, hasn't yelled the whole fortnight, he is home a lot more, he smiles and we made love the other night that had more passion that we have shared in years.

Tell me, what is the secret, I don't understand how?"

The guide responded,
"It's amazing to see what can happen when a woman stops talking".

[Fiona]

A while ago we had an exchange about this type of humour: I raised it as an example of the kind of thing we had to put up with in the 1950's. Is Melbourne in a time warp, or what?

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by Fiona

A while ago we had an exchange about this type of humour: I raised it as an example of the kind of thing we had to put up with in the 1950's. Is Melbourne in a time warp, or what?

Radio 4's comedy half-hour at 6.30 had a similar joke tonight. Sexism is alive and well in the UK also.

[Fiona]

Oh I know, Commandlinegamer: it is alive and well everywhere. But this thread is about sexism specifically in relation to religion: I thought the specific instance ironic in that context

[Hallo Alfie]

Hence the joke.

Seems the irony is lost on some.

No offence intended Fiona, but humour does not discriminate against any topic; all are fair game.

[Fiona]

Casual insult does not discriminate either. I usually tell the difference because one is funny and one is not. I need to revise my criteria, clearly

[Hallo Alfie]

Ah well.
I apologised and do so again - no insult intended - and certainly not personally.
As opposed to your first personal crack re the 1950s and Melbourne huh? - which btw I thought was pretty funny.

A joke is a joke, and depending on the topic, some like them and some don't. It usually/often depends on ones sensitivities. It might also depend on how seriously one likes to take a particular subject.

I have had debates about jokes with Jews about Hitler and the holocaust.
With AGW adherents on jokes about climate change.
With the alocoholics about their alcoholism.
With women about sexism.
With blondes about blond jokes
With men about men jokes
With gays and gay jokes
And with anyone about Alfie jokes (i.e. my foibles)
And the list goes on and on.

Oddly enough, it is often not the 'targets' of the jokes that are most offended it is the self appointed intelligentsia that are - I suspect they are too serious for their own good.

Most people accept them for what they are - see themselves or others in them and laugh (or not) and move on.
Like I say, it depends on ones sensitivities.

And again, I mean no personal offence, nor to women in general.

btw, I reckon some will have found it funny. Each to their own.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Darat

That also seems to support my speculations - wicca is a new religion and what do we find? It treats women as equals (at least) just like the culture it has arisen in.

The Hades it does. It treats women as vast superiors. Some of them refer to men as "sperm donors".

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Darat

That also seems to support my speculations - wicca is a new religion and what do we find? It treats women as equals (at least) just like the culture it has arisen in.

Oh, but Wicca is the oldest religion. It predates all of the Abrahamic ones. Or so I'm told.

Originally Posted by Tricky

The Hades it does. It treats women as vast superiors. Some of them refer to men as "sperm donors".

Not true. Some radical, frothing-at-the-mouth feminists do happen to be Wicca, but that's like saying that Fred Phelps is representative of Christianity.

Wicca recognises and requires both God and Goddess. Wiccan philosophy holds both the masculine and the feminine as equal partners in the universe. A Wiccan priest and priestess are required to undergo the Great Rite at the same time... for reasons that should be, um, obvious.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Testosterone.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Oh, but Wicca is the oldest religion. It predates all of the Abrahamic ones. Or so I'm told. . . .

Well, yes and no. Much of neo-Paganism has had to be invented (or possibly reinvented) because so much ws lost through not having been written down by the practitioners and by having been actively suppressed by later organized rleigion. Thus, much of modern Wicca is going to bear the imprint of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Still, old religions can often survive sub rosa within the structure of the new dominant rleigion. Bedouin women, officially Muslim, still pray to tree goddesses for fertility.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Well, yes and no. Much of neo-Paganism has had to be invented (or possibly reinvented) because so much ws lost through not having been written down by the practitioners and by having been actively suppressed by later organized rleigion. Thus, much of modern Wicca is going to bear the imprint of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Still, old religions can often survive sub rosa within the structure of the new dominant rleigion. Bedouin women, officially Muslim, still pray to tree goddesses for fertility.

Yeah. Perhaps I should have used a smiley. The claim I've heard from Wiccans is that their tradition is directly descended from the ancient pre-Abrahamic religions, a claim which is clearly bunk. Modern Wicca was almost entirely made up in the 1950s.

[Ethnikos]

I go along with the right brain/left brain theory, that says it was the evolution of religion to a book form that changed women's status, where they were dominant while it was still basically an oral tradition.
Women had a much more important role in the actual historical religion, more than are spoken of in the written form of that same history that we have had passed down to us today, meaning we are living a fraud by thinking only what is written is true.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Oh, but Wicca is the oldest religion. It predates all of the Abrahamic ones. Or so I'm told.

...snip...

The believers claim historical antecedents for it however that does not mean it isn't a new religion.

ETA: Duh - sorry blame it on posting after only the first cup of The TEA.

[Wolfman]

I'd generally agree with Darat in regards to culture shaping the religion. Things like wearing burquas, or female genital mutilation...these are things done in the name of religion, but that were actually introduced as a result of cultural beliefs (and then religion was used to justify/enforce them). Same way that when our culture believed slavery to be good, Christians used the Bible to justify it; and when our culture believed slavery to be bad, Christians used the Bible to condemn it.

Now, to the OP -- many of you are familiar with my work with the Mosuo, a matriarchal minority group in China. In the Mosuo culture, the women really are the leaders...they lead the house, own the property, make the decisions, etc. (As one Mosuo man said to me, "Men have the muscles...men's work is work that takes muscles. Women have the brains...women's work is work that takes brains")

And their religion reflects this. It is a polytheist religion, but the predominant god is a female entity; and much of the religious teachings focus on the 'sanctity' of womanhood (needless to say, they are becoming something of a 'holy grail' for feminist groups).

Ironically, despite all of this, only men can be 'priests' of this religion...and it is passed from father to son. The reason for this is rather interesting. The Mosuo were not always a purely matriarchal culture -- they had an upper and lower class, on a feudal system, where a rich minority owned all the land, and the peasant majority were their labor. Within that system, the upper class had a patriarchal system, while the lower class had a matriarchal system.

When the Communists took over in China, they destroyed all feudal practices...so the Mosuo "upper class' essentially disappeared overnight. Thus, today, the Mosuo are almost entirely matriarchal.

But the Mosuo priests -- called "Daba" -- were originally a part of the upper class, and although the rest of the patriarchal aspect of the culture disappeared, they retained a patriarchal system for passing on their knowledge.

It creates a rather unique situation. The Mosuo are, so far as I'm aware, the only culture in the world where a matriarchal system has essentially prevailed over a patriarchal one; and certainly, there's a great deal of respect for women, and a fairly high level of equality (in fact, children under 14 are largely raised with little gender differentiation, dressing the same and having the same responsibilities).

Yet their religion, which focuses on femininity and female goddesses, is led exclusively by men.

One of the many reasons the Mosuo continue to fascinate me :-)

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I go along with the right brain/left brain theory, that says it was the evolution of religion to a book form that changed women's status, where they were dominant while it was still basically an oral tradition.
Women had a much more important role in the actual historical religion, more than are spoken of in the written form of that same history that we have had passed down to us today, meaning we are living a fraud by thinking only what is written is true.

I think the whole "left brain/right brain" thing is a myth.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I think the whole "left brain/right brain" thing is a myth.

Or maybe like the Taliban murdering girls on their way to school.