Religion is Patriarchal

[AyeRobot]

Innit?

I am struggling to come up with reasons why it isn't. Can you help?

The main religions are without doubt patriarchal and damaging to women. Can't understand the Catholic women who object to women in the hierarchy or women in Islam who fail to accept the fact that women are considered to be lower than men.

Ayerobot - you might want to try the book 'Does God Hate Women?' -- I haven't read it, but I think Ophelia Benson who wrote it is fabulous. She blogs on feminism, religion and other stuff at www.butterfliesandwheels.org

But even at the origins of all the them their central character, the important 'man' the messenger, the deliverer of God's message is a man. This for me is one of the many many reasons all religion is bullshit and cannot come from anything other than a man on earth and not an omnipotent being in the sky. Surely a true loving God would have given men and women equality from the beginning. Why Jesus could not have been a woman or Muhammed....

Seems a little convenient that they're men right?

MrsTwinks, I'm not stalking you honestly, but again, you speak a lot on sense.

Surely religion was just an excuse for Kings? I wonder what came first 'Kings' or 'Priests'? Genuine question.

Personally having been brought up catholic there is no doubt that it is a patriarchal religion, and having most family members catholic it is actually hard to discuss feminism with them as in their minds the role of men and women are quite easily defined by tradition and the role of men in church backs this up.

If you start at the beginning from Jewish folklore, Lilith was made equal to Adam in the beginning but was removed after refusing to be subservient to him. Then Eve was made from Adams rib so she is literally an extension of a man to be controlled. I think that speaks for itself.

Later Jesus told St Peter to continue on with his church, therefore the argument is that all priests must be male as they are performing the role of Jesus. Therefore if you do believe this (as we have seen in the CoE) then having a women in the church is a direct contradiction of what Jesus said, I think that's pretty patriarchal too.

In reality the stories of Jesus show him treating men and women quite equally but the bible is a product of a cultural misogynist society and was written by men who would not even consider that women were to be considered in the hierarchy. As most religions have their historical roots from a time when man ran society it stands to reason that they are patriarchal.

Yes I agree that we still live in a patriarchal society dittany.

I think religion was invented for a variety of reasons. I believe that humans have a great need for a 'higher being' as this brings comfort. I also agree that it was invented by the rich to control the poor and vulnerable and unfortunately women were and are the majority in these groups.

Tbh I think the feminism cause would advance further dramatically if all religion was abolished and forgotten about but its not going to happen.

Ok dittanty I agree, women will always come last.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that religion - all the ones I've ever come across anyway - are patriarchal.

I am an atheist. I am not intending to cause offence to anyone who believe in god, but I cannot write this post without making it clear that I don't believe in god.

There's been quite a lot of research lately about religion and the evolution of the human brain. I know nothing is ever really 'proven' when it comes to science, but I thought the latest consensus among academics was that the human psyche is, in general, predisposed to believe in a religion of sorts, and that this, in part, explains why there are such strong similarities between different religions even when they can appear diametrically opposed on first glance. It seems that however rational it is to try to convince people that the god delusion is just that, it will never succeed.

It appears we cannot stamp out religion, only change what it is that people believe in and how they manifest that belief in their everyday lives. With that in mind, should religious structures be one of the main targets of feminism? Should we actively be lending our support to things like the campaign to ordinate women, rather than trying to shut down the religion itself, which it would appear is doomed to failure? Or do we run the risk of appearing to condone other examples of sexism in religion if we do that?

Also, I think it is quite possible to separate someone's faith from organised religion. I know someone who's quite a committed catholic (as in goes to mass every week without fail), but that someone definitely has their own views on issues such as contraception, sex before marriage, women priests, etc., and they're not misogynistic views. I often wonder why he's a catholic TBH...

You know I find the religious follower that assumes there own rules is well a convenient follower, I don't get it. I believe in the Koran but I wear a veil becuase whilst it's not documented at all I think that's what Allah wants, or I believe the word of God as listed in the Bible except for the bits that don;t suit me. It's delusional isn't it?

God and it's teachings come from the written text, why would anyone differentiate from it?

I would say in that case it is a cultural thing sunshine. A close relative is the same (and to an extent so am I). I believe that if you are bought up in a religion (it is Catholicism in my case) , all family celebrations are centred around the church, all your points of reference come from within that setting then it is very difficult to detatch yourself from it.

I would say most Catholics have varying ideas on contraception, sex before marriage etc....which probably doctrine-wise is more in line with a very liberal CofE approach but because you have always been catholic that is how you identify yourself.

In regards to how feminism should approach religion, I have no idea.....I don't think having women priests will help the church see women on a more equal footing that much but like you say it is unlikely that religion will ever disappear so it is a case of picking the lesser evil I suppose.

I agree with MillyR that it is impossible to separate religion from culture.

Religions are the product of their cultures, and they have helped to shape the way that those cultures have grown. Therefore, I would say that although the burka (for example) may not be required by the Koran, it is a result of the general attitude to women prevailing in the Koran and the Hadith.

I would also say that attempts to include women (women priests/ministers, or RC readers and ministers of communion) are a result of cultural shifts, where society at large has changed and religious authorities have realised that they have to throw a few crumbs to women.

kandinskysgirl you think that Jesus treated men and women equally. Exactly how many female apostles are there? And how many male? Did Jesus appoint Peter and Petra as equal leaders of the church?

Sorry alex, you are probably right, I just meant his general message seems to have been about loving everyone inclusively.

Firstly as an atheist I don't believe in any form of deity - but focusing on Catholicism for the moment (only because I did my dissertation on it!), it is very difficult to see past assertions of the early church fathers (St Jerome, St Tertullian, St Augustine, and of course St Paul, amongst others) who declare women as the 'gateway to hell'. Women were cast as earthly, (ie not spiritual), temptors (it was not the man's fault for pursuing/fornicating with a woman - she was the problem - replicated and played out large today in things such as rape myths, burqas, regulation of women's dress in any shape or form).

Tyr The whole virgin mary stuff is also very damaging and in 'giving' women this role the Catholic church created the dichotomy of madonna/whore. As to female apostles, Mary Magdalene was known as the apostle to the apostles in the early church writings and there are strong suggestions she was closest to Jesus and was favoured to lead the church. Funnily enough, she gets cut out of the Gospels (men could write, women couldn't) and it took until 1969 for the Catholic church to admit that nowhere did the bible say she was a reformed prostitute. Didn't help the proliferation of the Magdalene asylums where single mothers were kept for having fornicated.

If I had to pick one of the Abrahamic religions (at gunpoint) I would go for liberal reform Judaism. Matriarchal lineage (Jews win on common sense on so many grounds!) and female Rabbis for a long time. But most importantly a recognition that religious texts are a product of their time, and while providing a moral steer for life today, it is the spirit and not the letter of the law that guides.

But to answer AyeRobot I don't think there are any religions which are not entirely patriarchal, even Buddhism (I don't know enough about Shinto/Japanese Buddhism which is strong on revering nature but suspect still v patriarchal from Japan's society structures). Karen Armstrong (former nun) is a very interesting read on this subject.

I think it's wrong to say flatly "Religion is Patriarchal" when there are so many religions, some of them totally obscure.

As was said near the start, Quakers have always been very good at equality, and it's part of their theology. If I've got it right, they say there is "that of God" inside everyone, and that's why they are pacifists and why they hate to see anyone take advantage of anyone else, and why they think nobody should expect to dominate another person. They downplay the stories of Jesus in favour of whatever promptings come from people's individual consciences.

Unitarians have the viewpoint that religion is something to be considered rather than dictated. They're the people "who'd rather talk about heaven than go to heaven". And at least in America, most of their newly trained ministers are women these days.

Of course the western tradition is what it is (and some of the eastern ones are no better) and some people just don't want a religion at all, but then there are others who really think it's necessary. If you want a religion that's not about an angry old bloke in a dressing gown, there are some out there.

If you want a religion that's not about an angry old bloke in a dressing gown.

Someone will probably accuse me of being offensive but at this.

I went to a church where women are not allowed to preach. It was the most respectful and encouraging place for me. If I told people I was a housewife and mother, they would say "That's the hardest job of all." The church was not all housewives though, it was full of women who were doctors, lawyers, businesswomen. Lots of them had nannies. Very wealthy area. I was a Bible study leader in the women's group. We had very deep discussions on all subjects, religion, politics, etc. I could teach other women but couldn't teach men, but if you wanted to go to a mixed group there was housegroup as an option. I didn't really mind about the church not having women preachers. They believed that way because of a certain interpretation of the Bible. I never had a burning desire to preach, and if I did have that desire there were any amount of churches I could have moved to had I wanted to, but the church I was in was great. For me the whole women preaching thing is not a deal breaker. Anyway.

Contrast my feminist mother, who saw me as a housewife and told me on many occasions that I ought to get a job, that I was only a housewife because I lacked the confidence to go out to work (patronising crap) and told me that I ought to put my career first over my children, and talked about me in denigrating tones, like when I met my cousins with Mum there too, they asked what I do and I said I stayed at home with the children and my Mum instantly cut in and told them about the paid work I used to do, as if it was shameful to admit I was a sahm.

Funny how things work out.