Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Religion and the patriarchy

50 replies

QuentinBunbury · 26/08/2021 09:38

A Jewish woman waited 9 years to be granted a "get" by her husband to allow a religious divorce.
To prevent abusive husbands using the granting of a get to control their wives, the UK wrote into law this is coercive control and they can be prosecuted.
Now some rabbis are saying that the get is only valid if granted by free will so any woman using the law to encourage their husband to provide a get, isn't getting a valid religious divorce Angry
I mean, FFS. I'm posting this as an example of how social structures (in this case religion) enforce patriarchy. The man has ultimate power over the marriage and not surprisingly, controlling coercive men abuse that power. And then religion doubles down to protect the structure and not the women.
Although this story is about orthodox Judaism I'm sure other religions have similar strictures.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58334745

OP posts:
TempsPerdu · 27/08/2021 10:38

I've always taken the default purpose of all religions to be the oppression of women. It's hard to see what other purpose they serve

It’s certainly a big part of the picture, especially in the Judeo-Christian religions. We hear a lot about the obvious misogyny within Islam, and the more Orthodox branches of Judaism, but I was involved in the evangelical church for a while in my teens/20s and the misogyny (and homophobia) there is almost more insidious, because it’s wrapped up in a warm, fuzzy, inclusive exterior - all the ‘women are created equal but different/complementary’; ‘God has granted women different gifts’ (which generally amounts to looking after kids and staffing the church cafe) guff.

So many of the bright, promising young women I encountered there were indoctrinated into choosing traditionally ‘female’ career paths (generally teaching or nursing) then married off as soon as they finished university to start procreating, so their careers were never really allowed to get going anyway. Ultimately it’s all about control, and IME the whole evangelical church is carefully calibrated to make women feel slightly inferior to men, while maintaining the overall sense of warm, fuzzy virtue. Ultimately the patriarchal status quo in maintained, whether this be through direct force or more subtle indoctrination from childhood.

samG76 · 27/08/2021 16:35

Waterbottle - You say the middle class women's position worsens with marriage though their kids do much better. Is this comparing the married women with their single counterparts or those who are unmarried and co-habiting?

thinkingaboutLangCleg · 29/08/2021 06:43

Soviet Russia for a time … set up breeding programs where you’d be assigned to a man of the Communist Party’s choice and forced to bear their children.

I’ve never heard of that, PlandeRaccordement. Can you post any links, please?

While I was looking for information about that, I found an interesting link to an article apparently written in 1926 by a woman in Russia:
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/

KimikosNightmare · 29/08/2021 11:37

@Brefugee

I think it is a good argument to separate legal from religious marriage - for all religions - as you have in many countries.

In Germany it is quite common to have the legal ceremony and then the religious one (the religious one has no legal standing) and many people don't bother with the latter (you have to belong yo the church, not sure about other religions, and that means paying church tax which many people object to).

People who take the religious part seriously often treat the civil part in the same way you would to register your car: turn up, sign papers, go back to work. Legally they're covered, but the religious part for them is the "real" marriage ceremony.

Conversely - assuming the partner who wants the divorce can safely get away - a divorce gives you the right to remarry or whatever, even if your religion forbids it. (for sure in sma orthodox or pretty closed religions this can be impossible).

I prefer this, tbh, to give people a bit more safety.

But that is the case in the UK. All of the religious stuff whether on marriage or divorce is an optional extra. If a person wants to follow a religion with such oppressive rules that's up to them.
KimikosNightmare · 29/08/2021 11:44

@onlychildhamster

It is also insane that for many Muslim women in the UK, the nikkah ceremony is not a legally binding marriage which impacts negatively on the woman re finances and custody arrangements as they are forced to fall back on Sharia courts. www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51508974

They should have the German system like @Brefugee says. I myself married in Germany as we were living there at the time. It would protect vulnerable women and children much better.

It's not "insane". The UK has basic civil law requirements for marriage and divorce. The civil marriage requirements are straightforward and cheap. Any religious "requirements" are optional add ons.

If a person chooses to make the religious add on options their only ceremony that's their choice but there's really no cause for complaint if they choose to ignore the basic civil law requirements which apply to everyone else.

MyFloorIsLava · 29/08/2021 11:44

Secular marriage in the UK isn't what oppresses women, its the expectation that the woman will make the career sacrifices when children come along. Marriage actually protects women in this situation, giving them a right to a share of the family home, earnings and pensions.

onlychildhamster · 29/08/2021 23:14

@KimikosNightmare if you get married in a church or synagogue, it would automatically be a legally binding marriage. You don't need a separate civil ceremony.

From the Citizens advice website:

A marriage can take place in:-

a Register Office
premises approved by the local authority such as a hotel
a church of the Church of England, Church in Wales
a synagogue or any other private place if both partners are Jewish
a Meeting House if one or both partners are either members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) or are associated with the Society by attending meetings
any registered religious building (England and Wales only)
the home of one of the partners if the partner is housebound or detained, for example, in prison
a place where one partner is seriously ill and not expected to recover, for example, in hospital
a licensed naval, military or air force chapel

Some mosques are registered marriage venues, but most are not. You can argue that mosques should take the initiative to register themselves but they are not registered for some reason which does not help Muslim women in this country.If you are muslim, you are going to get married in a mosque/by an imam. Some savvy women would insist on a civil ceremony but not all women would have the confidence to do so, esp younger women. But they seem to be the only women who face this conudrum of 'getting married' in the eyes of the world but are not really married.

onlychildhamster · 29/08/2021 23:16

@KimikosNightmare

For legal purposes, there are three different types of religious marriage ceremonies. If the correct procedure is not followed the marriage will not be valid.

Church of England marriages must be conducted by a member of the clergy, for example an Anglican Priest, who will register the marriage. The marriage must take place in the presence of two witnesses and in accordance with the rules of the Church of England.

Quaker and Jewish marriages are recognised differently to other religious ceremonies. For example, there is no need for the marriage ceremony to take place in a registered building, nor to be in public. The marriage ceremony can be conducted according to Jewish or Quaker religious rules. The official preforming the Jewish or Quaker ceremony will register the marriage.

Other religious marriages, such as Muslim, Hindu and Sikh marriages are required to satisfy additional requirements. The marriage must take place in a registered building. Not all buildings are registered, so it is important to check first with your local authority. If the building is not registered then the marriage will not be legally recognised.

The ceremony itself can take any form, provided that:

it is in public
there are at least two witnesses present
either a registrar of the district in which the ceremony is taking place or an authorised person is present
both parties make the necessary declarations, for example, declaring that there are no lawful objections to the marriage

KimikosNightmare · 29/08/2021 23:33

Why are you telling me all this?

There are requirements for a marriage to be legally valid. Everything else has no bearing on the legal validity of the marriage under the civil law of the 4 countries in the UK.

There is no requirement whatsoever to have any religious ceremony

You don't need a separate civil ceremony

You need to provide details to the local registrar who provides the marriage schedule- you cannot opt out of the civil part- without that Schedule no marriage is valid. The religious stuff is still an add on.

onlychildhamster · 29/08/2021 23:38

blogs.timesofisrael.com/my-unorthodox-life-is-the-story-of-one-woman-not-a-community/

This is an interesting article (i think), that is relevant to this discussion about how we perceive 'religious people as oppressed' and how they might not regard themselves as so. The writer is a man who left his Charedi community (and his family) as he wanted to be a scientist. He recently graduated with a First in Physics from Bristol University despite having no secular education until 18 (and could barely speak english at that age despite growing up in London), so probably one of the more successful leavers.

blogs.timesofisrael.com/my-unorthodox-life-is-the-story-of-one-woman

'The heroine of this show sees orthodox Judaism as inherently oppressive, especially towards women, which has sparked a response from many successful and happy orthodox women who don’t see themselves as oppressed. In turn, these women are called apologists by critics and leavers of orthodox Judaism. I must confess that when I first left orthodox Judaism some years ago I would also see things in this light.

Many years and a philosophy degree later I see a more relativist picture. I don’t think that orthodox communities, including strictly orthodox ones, are either better or worse than other communities, nor do I think that their flaws or attributes are overall more significant than those found in other communities. I have seen no research suggesting that people living an orthodox life are either more or less happy than people not living that life, or that life satisfaction is more or less than in other communities. This is the kind of research you would need to show me to change my mind.

Each and every community or society in the world has its own unique norms and values. These will affect people in the community in different ways, sometimes beneficially and sometimes harmfully. The same norms that can harm some can be beneficial to others. the same values that can produce negative effects can also produce positive effects.

Take for example the insularity and xenophobia that exists in many ultra-orthodox communities. I would argue that this is one side of a coin whose other side is unparalleled community support systems and safety nets. No other community I know of exhibits that level of concern and support for community members, which includes a private first resolve system, free AA service, interest-free loans, lending organisations for any and every need, volunteers to visit the sick, and try list goes in and on. Even since leaving the strictly-orthosox community and suffering quite a bit of pain through shunning and family cut-off, I have still found time and time again that in time of need it is more often than not orthodox Jews who stood by my side and offered a helping hand.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the good excuses or cancels out the bad. But I am asking, what if they come as a package deal? What if those tremendous, unparalleled community support comes hand in hand with insularity? What if the reason we don’t see this level of communal support in wider society is because we are more individualistic, cosmopolitan and universal?

Every community has it’s own good and bad. Since leaving the community I am freer, but I am also less supported. I am less judged, but I am also less looked after. I can make more choices, but I am more lonely. In other words, I have gained the benefits of individualism and suffered its negative consequences too. That was my choice and I’d do it all over again, but I wouldn’t judge those who find the other option more appealing, nor would I claim that mine is the universally better choice.

I am no apologist for the charedi community and I have written and spoken a lot about its problems with regards to education, benefits and tax fraud, insularity and so on. But there’s a difference between pointing out individual shortcomings of a community and its wholesale demonisation. When you start seeing members of the charedi community as oppressed victims, rather than as ordinary folk going about their lives, trying to make a living and support their family, that’s when your criticism has gone into demonisation.

It is undeniable that the charedi community serves to us Jews in the wider community as this exotic “other”. I see this in the response to the talks I give about the charedi community, as well as in the paternalism with which some well-intentioned activists want to “save” those poor oppressed charedi Jews. But we need to learn to overcome our cultural supremacy – this implicit idea that our way of life is superior to others’ – and we can do with a bit more cultural relativism. This does not mean that anything goes and that the practices of other communities shouldn’t be put under scrutiny and called out when harmful. But it does mean understanding that while other ways of life might have harms that ours don’t, our way of life probably has harms that they don’t. And just like we’re not all victims of secular culture who need saving through the light of fundamentalist religion, neither do they need saving in the hands of our secular, liberal values.

When you look more closely you see that wider society has many ills that you wouldn’t find in charedi communities, such as homelessness, a culture that sexualises young girls and that puts tremendous sexual pressures on young boys, and the negative sides of individualism and atomism mentioned above. In turn, charedi society has its own unique harms and ills and, as I’ve argued, the good and the bad often come as a package deal: the grandma that gives you lots of sweets when you’re well behaved is more likely to tell you off when you’re bad than the indifferent grandma who doesn’t have a close relationship with you – to use a childhood example. The same community that will judge you more and expect you to conform will also be there for you in times of need and will provide you with the sense of support and warmth that you cannot get in a more individualistic society in which you enjoy more freedoms.

But no community works for everybody. The charedi community didn’t work for Julia Haart and it didn’t work for me. But let’s not pretend that our communities work for everybody. We also have plenty of people who fall through the cracks and we also have lots of people bitter with the system and feeling oppressed – as a year of riots, protest and unrest has shown very clearly.

If we want to help “oppressed charedim” there are plenty of people who need our help. Most Julia Haarts, who feel oppressed by the charedi system, don’t have her fearlessness, connections and money. I didn’t. Please do help people in that situation for whom the charedi system doesn’t work and who find themselves genuinely oppressed and helpless. But don’t assume that charedim in general are victims who just need to see the light of western liberalism. Let’s not forget that life is no party in any community and that we have enough problems and disillusionment in our own communities.

Julia Haart says that she felt oppressed in her charedi community. I believe her. So did I. But she also says that she sees charedim as victims. That’s where she’s wrong. My mother, a proud and happy house mother, is no victim, nor are thousands of happy men and women in the community, who live their best lives, with beautiful family values and profound meaning. Let’s put to rest this lazy trope of charedim as oppressed and miserable, shall we?'

onlychildhamster · 29/08/2021 23:52

@KimikosNightmare the fact that you can theoretically choose to have an additional civil ceremony does not change the fact that many muslim women would have only a nikkah ceremony and be unprotected.

This doesn't just affect the lives of young women, but also their children.

QuentinBunbury · 30/08/2021 11:02

There are requirements for a marriage to be legally valid. Everything else has no bearing on the legal validity of the marriage under the civil law of the 4 countries in the UK.

There is no requirement whatsoever to have any religious ceremony

Yes, that's true if you aren't religious
If you are then structures are in place to enable control and abuse of women. For many religious people, the religious ceremony is the important thing. And if they are told that using the law to protect themselves is against the religion, then the legal requirement won't help them, will it?
I don't think there is an easy answer but just saying there are laws in place is not adding anything
Especially to the kind of structure hamster describes

OP posts:
KimikosNightmare · 30/08/2021 11:14

[quote onlychildhamster]@KimikosNightmare the fact that you can theoretically choose to have an additional civil ceremony does not change the fact that many muslim women would have only a nikkah ceremony and be unprotected.

This doesn't just affect the lives of young women, but also their children.[/quote]
You don't "choose" to have an additional civil ceremony- obtaining the civil marriage schedule is essential for all weddings in the UK.

The bits you choose are the religious add ons once you've got your marriage schedule.

If anyone wants to decide the basic

minimum, civil law , not in the least bit onerous requirements (fill in a form, send it to a Registrar, collect Schedule) don't apply or should not apply to them, that's up to them. However if they want to opt out of the basic UK law, tough luck, if it then doesn't work out.

KimikosNightmare · 30/08/2021 11:18

I have absolutely no time for anyone who chooses to follow a religion with oppressive, restrictive and irrational rules who then complains that their particular religion's oppressive, restrictive and irrational rules are making life difficult for them.

onlychildhamster · 30/08/2021 14:10

@KimikosNightmare I somehow don't think that women are going to leave their families, communities and entire lives, possibly suffer poverty, social exclusion because a woman on Mumsnet said they should do that instead of going through a religious marriage as expected of them. You have easier choices, other women don't.

It's like saying- I have no patience for women who choose to stick themselves in abusive marriages when there are so many non abusive men around.

KimikosNightmare · 30/08/2021 14:44

Every woman in the UK has the choice of having her marriage regularised in accordance with UK secular family law at very little cost and very little inconvenience.

She can add on whatever religious trappings she wants. If she chooses to skip step one , it's absolutely not for UK civil law to step in and sort out the problems caused by religious "laws" which are not, and, should not be part of UK law.

QuentinBunbury · 30/08/2021 18:30

Totally missing the point of both patriarchy and religion there.
How much choice does a woman who is part of a society like Charedi Jews or Muslims as discussed above actually have? Do you really think she will feel able to demand the legal ceremony when her social group tell her its,a best not necessary and at worst actively against her religion?

OP posts:
samG76 · 31/08/2021 09:22

Quentin - I've been to quite a few charedi weddings, and they are all recognised as civil weddings also. There's only a tiny proportion who get married religiously only.

QuentinBunbury · 31/08/2021 09:44

I don't know much about them but what I meant in that case was what the article said - that the law can't be used to force a get, so the protections of civil law don't fully apply. If that makes sense.
Not trying to come across as insulting to any religion, more just saying its not as simple as if women get married legally they are protected

OP posts:
DysonSphere · 31/08/2021 12:25

@onlychildhamster

I just wanted to say I'm not Jewish but your experience and perspective in your long post above, has helped me in my own cognition and viewpoint of my personal situation tremendously. I feel a weight off my shoulders. It's wise, truly brilliant and insightful and I'm extremely grateful, thank you.

onlychildhamster · 31/08/2021 12:36

@DysonSphere it wasn't my article, it is an article written by a guy I once met at a talk at my synagogue. Thanks and glad it helped. X

KimikosNightmare · 31/08/2021 13:26

@QuentinBunbury

Totally missing the point of both patriarchy and religion there. How much choice does a woman who is part of a society like Charedi Jews or Muslims as discussed above actually have? Do you really think she will feel able to demand the legal ceremony when her social group tell her its,a best not necessary and at worst actively against her religion?
I do not think UK civil law should be changed to make religious rules an alternative rather than an add on to secular law.

All you are doing is suggesting that irrational, oppressive and highly individualistic beliefs should be given the same recognition as secular law.

QuentinBunbury · 31/08/2021 15:08

I'm not arguing they should. I'm saying in certain communities they are to the detriment of women especially. It was kind of the point of the thread. How do we protect those women when secular laws are ignored? My answer isn't "well they chose to be religious"

OP posts:
KimikosNightmare · 31/08/2021 16:15

@QuentinBunbury

I'm not arguing they should. I'm saying in certain communities they are to the detriment of women especially. It was kind of the point of the thread. How do we protect those women when secular laws are ignored? My answer isn't "well they chose to be religious"
You are arguing they should. You are arguing for separate requirements for the validity of marriage or divorce to be set up to accommodate religious beliefs.

You are asking that civil secular law should step in to enforce "contracts" not recognised in that civil law structure.

QuentinBunbury · 31/08/2021 19:18
Hmm Not sure how you read that from what I posted but fine
OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread