Religion - initially good by corrupted by patriarchy?

[BatmansBat]

So, as to not derail another thread…

I believe that many religions start out relatively positive for women given the times they were founded.

Christianity- competing with the Mithras cult in Ancient Rome. Slowly becoming more prominent due to the fact that both women and slaves were considered eligible to participate.

Islam - the prophet Mohammed’s wife Khadija was a successful business woman.

Compared to how we live today, these religions can both be extremely oppressive to women. But at the time, they were actually quite decent compared to those times.

I believe that over the centuries, many religions have become increasingly old fashioned and hostile to progress. Especially where the religious texts are interpreted literally, they are suddenly transporting us back in time to where the values was completely different to now. And not at all taking into account the progress women have made over the past two centuries.

What do you think @nicegerbil?

On the other thread OP you said that one way women benefitted was no sex before marriage.

I disagreed!

It would be interesting to pick that up again if you like?

I think we all agree that Aisha was a child at the time of marriage. I am not sure how common that was. I believe that Aisha ended up one of the most respected teachers of Islam. I believe that Islam also introduced the right of inheritance for women

link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230503311_6

NiceGerbil, I am pretty sure I never said that women benefited from no sex before marriage… That sounds quite boring

Oh sorry! Must have been someone else.

Apologies.

We seem to be skipping around religions and times!

Like I say who knows if 9 was at thing in other areas/ religions but it wasn't written down.

Children got married here amongst the ruling classes I think?

Christianity was astonishingly pro women for first century Judea.
Christ had women as disciples, and chose a woman- Mary of Magdala - to be the first witness of His resurrection, and to take the news to the male disciples.
He rescued a woman who was about to be stoned to death for adultery.
He talked with the Samaritan woman at the well, despite it being taboo for a rabbi to speak to any woman let alone an unclean, non Jewish one. He was amused rather than condemnatory at her sexual promiscuity, and offered her salvation regardless.
St Paul installed women as church leaders and preachers across Asia Minor, preached alongside them, and mentioned them in his epistles.
There is some evidence from literary analysis that the anti women passages in his epistles were added later by a different author, as the styles are completely different.
The big problem for women came when Rome adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.
It became a desirable career with a power structure, in a male dominated militaristic society - so women were written out, silenced, and banned from being priests.
It is only now, centuries later, that we are regaining ground. My own church has had women priests for 60 years, and twice had women as the national leader Moderator).

Babdoc, that is so interesting. It does support what I believe (and what I have been able to research on this now).

I do want to reiterate that I think that religion now can be terribly oppressive for women. Men took over and used it to gain power, to keep women down and as a handy excuse to rob, murder and steal with some alleged justification from a god that never condoned it.

I don’t have an answer to the child bride question though. My sense is that the prophet Mohammed only did what was acceptable at the time and actually improved conditions for women, but it would be very helpful if any Muslim poster could help.

I do know that there are multiple interpretations of the Koran and that scholars argue about interpretations. I think some of the current strictest interpretations are cultural rather than literal with support from the Koran but I am ready to be corrected.

Thanks, OP. Obv I can’t speak for all religions, or even all sects of my own, but as a Christian feminist, I find the Church of Scotland is a comfortable spiritual home.
My previous minister was actually a lesbian, who was instrumental on national committees in gaining acceptance for gay ministry.
I have had more female ministers than male, and they have always been accepted by the males in the congregation without quibble.
I have listened to many thoughtful and erudite sermons on the role of various women in the Bible and the modern church. There is no area of worship that excludes us.

I'm not sure it can be applied to all religions but I do think early Christianity and Islam were, within the context of their times, good for women. But as soon as they become more established the men take over all power and repression is restored.

It's the same with political movements, French Revolution - women storm the Bastille but don't get a vote, China - women hold up half the sky to forced abortions.

It's the same in economics women play a big part till it becomes really profitable then men take over eg women at forefront of computing in the early days - where are they now?
It's a definate pattern and it's depressing.

I am reading a book called "consider the women" at the moment which looks at matriarchal within the abrahamic religions. In one of the early chapters the author meets a woman in the USA who converted from christianity to Islam as a feminist act because in her view the fundamental texts behind each religion (ignoring issues that are inherently about the cultural traditions of the countries where the religions are practiced) the latter seemed to her to be distinctly more feminist and less misogynistic.

Joining the thread late - I found it due to your accidental "oops wrong thread" post elsewhere @NiceGerbil and thought it sounded like an interesting topic so have hunted it out.

Thank you, I am looking forward to reading that book. It would make sense if a religious text written later would be better for women (Koran vs New Testament).

I do believe that humans often look to something to believe in. All cultures seem to have religions and as religions disappear they are often replaced by other beliefs.

In many religions there is an underlying message about piety and about behaving according to certain standards. Many religions also have an equality before God which I find appealing.

But I do believe that religions are used as a means to oppress women, going against their core messages (although sometimes relying on the cultural status quo at the time of creation).

And also slowly developing from something that is progressive for women to something that is pushing them down. I think this is patriarchy influencing them.

More broadly you could pick up the classic by Durkheim "Elementary Forms of Religious Life", which in essence - its been a while since I read it tbh - says that all religion when organised will corrupt themselves into tools for social control. Women are more vulnerable to that in general perhaps.

There have been persistent rumours about women in early Christianity before it was spread around Rome, most notably the one about Mary Magdalene being Christ's wife. The non-canonical gospels mention women a bit more I think.

We're looking back at early Christianity through the distorted lens of 2000 years: not only through the Romans, but through those of the many peoples who were left when the empire broke up, and then through the many countries re-established afterwards. All of those viewed women in slightly different ways. It's remarkable how more controlling societies always seem to target women en masse.