ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
How CAN you be religious if you are a feminist?(227 Posts)
Given that misyogyny is absolutely inherent in Christianity, Islam and the rest (even when they try to dress it up as saying they 'revere' women and women are 'special' it;s still about women being defined by men as not quite human), how can a woman follow any of these myth systems without accepting that she's less than fully human and her imaginary friend thinks so too, otherwise why wouldn't it have smashed the patriarchy already?
I think the problem with your argument starts with the word 'given'. I don't think that it is 'given' at all. I think that is a subjective premise, which in itself needs unpicking and debating, before you can move on to the subject of your title question.
OK lou let's debate that assumption then. Because their are many examples of religion being used to control and subjugate women.
In Christianity women are not allowed the freedom to decide what to do with their own bodies, they cannot ascend to the highest authority (even in protestantism they cannot be bishops) and even though their main prophet said nothing bad about women and was openly friends with women (and undoubtedly married to one as it was illegal for jewish men to be unmarried in those days) by the fourth century christianity was already being twisted to promote male supremacy (look at the gospels they left out).
In Islam the gender apartheid is obvious. Honour killings, ritual genital mutilation and the veil are all methods of control. In strict Muslim states women have significantly less rights than men and many are executed on spurious claims.
In orthodox Judaism, women are considered unclean when menstruating and some men refuse any physical contact with any women who is not related (including a handshake).
In hinduism, the misogyny is revealed in the many she-demons and the characterisation of women as 'chaos' and disorder.
So, your premise is correct, one shouldn't assume a hatred of women in religion, but many examples can be found, you don't even have to look hard.
To answer your question SGB I don't. However if I believed in God(s) I would find it possible to reconcile God(s) with being a woman, but not any religion.
i am a feminist, and (tenuously at the moment) a Catholic.
i have coped with misogyny by seeing it as part of the structure of the Church rather than inherent to Christ's message.
Christ loved women and valued them - they were the first to see him after the resurrection. I don't believe that he thought they were worth less than men. I think that came with the Church which as a human institution is fallible and capable of warping a divine message.
Probably this makes me a bad Catholic, you are meant to agree to all of it, not just pick and choose. I picked and chose the bits that suited my conscience - like how could my gay brother be sinning in his relationship with his partner? They are in love and he is v kind and a good man.
I was ok with the 'ignore the bits I can't agree to' until recently. At present I feel that my Church demands that I overlook too much (i have detailled this on another thread) in order to keep going and calling myself a Catholic. I have chosen to keep my relationship with God and sacrifice the churchgoing for now.
Is there a difference between having a religious belief and being part of a reigious organisation?
Because many many examples you cite, DemonChild, are s a result of religion being bolted on to a patriarchal society. there is nothing in Islam which advocates GM, GM is a tribal / cultural phenomenum of some countries which adopted Islam. there are many Ismaic countries where GM would be an anathema.
Do you have to be in a church which doesn't allow female bishops in order to eb a Christian? The christian church didn't exist in Christ's time, after all!
I am nt religious at all. And I suspect that there are no mainstream woman-centred religions because there are no woman-centric societies from which they could have arisen.
In Christianity, as far as I know (am no scholar in the subject) the discrimination against women comes either from the old testament, or from the structured churches fo St Paul onwards - not actually from the reported teachings of Christ himself.
Sorry, that was what I meant [longwinded emoticon]
If any gods exist I'm sure they're not misogynists (or racist or classist for that matter). It's the people involved who make such distinctions and until God joins the discussion, their's is the word we have to go with.
I'm a feminist and a (very liberal) Christian - it's only patriarchal society (and latterly capitalism) that has tried to make Christianity misogynistic.
In the Bible men and women are equal and in the early Christian church women had equal standing in the Church (were equiv. of bishops and stuff).
It's only interpretation that makes it seem misogynistic - same as being anti-homosexuality - tis not in the text (unless you interepret it as being there).
I'm a member of the Church of Scotland where women (after many years of debate and reform) can hold any position of authority.
I think when you say Protestantism DemonChild you're actually talking about the Anglican Church. There are a lot of Protestant denominations.
Yeah, i think much of your argument comes from the fact that organised religion has arisen from a parttriarchal prspective and is clearly sexist at times. The teachings of Christ were very often kind to oppressed women - haemorrhaging woman, woman at the well, adulteress etc. Yes, Paul's writings are tricky, but are also vcery contradictory, and very much need to be taken in the context of its time. He was very radical for his time and, once you study his letters, they are not as sexist as they first appear (esp if you cherry pick sentances). I can only speak for the Christian Church as this is what I have knowledge of, and it is very much still male dominated, which is frustrating. But I don't believe in the church persay, I believe in Jesus, and do voice what I see as injustice whenever I can - as do many others.
And your premise that it was illegal for Jewish men not to be married then is, as far as I know, wrong. It was unusual, but not illegal.
And , yes, many Christian churches value women as equals -the methodist and church of scotland to name but two.
Islam is also not necessarily mysogynistic either - the way it is carried out is to do with the culture of the country. If there are honour killings and genital mutilation that is to do with the society, not the religion.
Humans have always bent religion to fit their particular viewpoint.
The fact that religions have been used to bolster up patriarchal attitudes does not make the religion itself mysogynistic, though may of the followers and the hierarchy may be. My church (Scottish Episcopal, part of the Anglican Communion) has had women priests for some years, without any of the "get-out clauses" which the C of E have. And they passed new rules a few years back to allow women bishops, though we don't actually have one yet (small church, few vacancies at bishop level since the rule was changed)
There is nothing inherently misogynistic about Christ's teachings and therefore by definition there can't be in Christianity (as it should be) even if there is in many Christian denominations even now.
You are quite wrong, religious law took precedence in such matters and marriage was obligatory, Simply because procreation took place within marriage and most cultures at the time took steps to ensure continuation.
The idea that a man could be unmarried at the time and not have it used to defame him by the scribes and the pharisees is laughable.
Look to modern day rabbinical Judaism where they marry children off. Where do you think that came from.
OP You can of course be religious and a feminist. but there are quite a few misogynist faiths out there so just give them a wide berth and you should be fine.
If, as I believe, you are talking about the Abrahamic faiths then obviously not, they are clearly a boys club.
Well, In all the theological studies I have done I have never come across that law as an obligation. Yes, religious law was dominant but that does not make it obligatory. Some prophets and holy men were unmarried and celibate. John the Baptist wasn't married. In fact the use and abuse of such laws was challenged continuously by Jesus during his time on earth. And he was, most certainly, defamed by the Scribes and Pharisees for the very fact that he did not abide by many Jewish laws such as healing on sabbath etc
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Ha. good one SGB.
I think that how people manage it is the same as they manage to use contraception and be a RC. ie they take the parts that speak to them and carefully ignore the other bits. Doesn't bear close scrutiny but then how many of us live absolutely consistently all the time. I worry about global warming but sometimes i buy stuff which has come halfway round the world. Type thing.
The main organised religions aren't top-fab for women true, but lots of people have a personal belief system/adhere to smaller religions which are different. So in those cases there is no clash.
I have a religious faith, well, because I do. I can't not have it, and believe me, it's not from a lack of questioning. I practise that faith in the religion into which I was born and in which I grew up. Which is undoubtedly sexist and has a whole bunch of bad things going for it. There's not a blind acceptance by everyone, and I don;t think my imaginary friend thinks I am less than human (I don't agree that the church views women as less than human btw, although the powers that be obviously see us as different to men, and not in a good way...)
depends on your definition of religious really - if you mean follows an organised religion such as the ones you have mentioned then yes, the two ideologies do rather clash.
OTOH it is perfectly possible to have a faith and be a feminist.
In fact I appear to be repeating what ISNT said.
My Vicar said she never wanted to be a bishop anyhow as there were too many meetings with boring people and not enough preaching.
We're a female dominated CoE church, church wardens, treasurers, organist, vicar, majority of the PCC - all woman
And last time I checked it was actually Eve that took the first bite of the apple and gave some to Adam, Adam blamed eve, Eve blamed the serpent. Which if you do beleive in God is all a bit silly really all the finger pointing as God knew who had done it anyhow.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Want to post quickly, will read whole thread later. SGB and DemonChild, you are both making the same mistake that many church leaders make - equating the Church with God/ Christianity.
Here are the differences as I see them:
The Church is a bunch of fallible, finite people of varied backgrounds, all with as many 'issues' as the rest of the world. Like everyone outside the Church, we all screw up from time to time in one way or another, and some people screw up bigger than others.
God - is an infinite being, therefore whatever we humans (being finite) try to do to represent or comprehend him/ her will always be in some way inadequate (i.e. how can a finite being fully understand an infinite being? Impossible).
Christianity - is the way that some of us try to understand and connect with this God. Again, it's inadequate but hey, we (mostly) do our best.
SGB, your feminism question is an interesting one and definitely worthy of consideration and discussion. In brief, I would say that Jesus was born into a culture which was in many ways very patriarchal. However, as ever, he stood outside the culture in order to challenge its prejudices. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of Jesus treating women of all backgrounds as equals. Seeing as the Church (i.e. the people) is meant to take Jesus as its example of how to be fully human, I think that's pretty conclusive.
So while some bigoted corners of the Church (people) may try to impose restrictions on women (don't get me started, grr), they are just betraying their own screwed-upness. Same as the nutters who bomb abortion clinics or claim that God created white people as the master race. All these different people's screwed-upness is about their problems, not the God they are trying to represent. So while I have a problem with all of them, I know that they and their ishoos are entirely separate from the faith that I practise.
That was meant to be a short post!
Hope this discussion continues, will be back in a few days!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.