Is it possible to be have faith and be a feminist?...

[onelittlefish]

This is a questions I am asking myself because recently I have started to feel more like a feminist in my view of world. However, I am also a christian and there are some elements that I find hard to reconcile with with feminism - particularly, where the bible says that a woman should submit to her husband. Also, most of my Christian friends seem to be stay at home mothers; not something I have an objection to in itself but I think they perceive that the Bible says they should.

However, there are parts that are fully conducive to feminism: there is one part that say one person should not objectify another - this something that is very relevant to feminism and goes to it's roots as women have always been objectified by men.

So please answer, do you think it is possible to have faith and be a feminist?

Thats a great post and great explanantions Abs. It shows how what looks oppressive to outsiders often isnt considered oppressive by women themsleves. I'm sure jewish women roll their eyes nearly as much as we do at being told by athiest feminists we are oppressed (and yes, I know many women in religion are oppressed but its by men who use the religion to justify it in the same way athiest women get oppressed by athiest men and use psychology/biology.saw it on the TV etc to justify their oppressive behaviour. Its men)

Women is Islam are not obliged to cook, clean, work. Their husbands must pay for it all if its demanded. Men's money belongs to the wife and a wife's money is her own. Obviously, in todays economic climate muslim women have to be realistic but its set out in Shariah. A man must also sexually satistfy his wife before his own pleasure (buy me that rabbit oh husband!). Women dont have these obligations.
Men must not stop a wife (obviously all this is in an ideal world, just like Abs post) going out to work, getting educatted (education is a commandment on both sexes) as its against Islamic law.
Sexual intercourse is not allowed during a period but other methods of pleasure are, so different from jewish law.
When asked from where salvation came (ie, learning about God) the Prophet (pbuh) said the first 3 routes come 'at the feet of the mother'. The 4th is from the father.
Both men and women are expected to dress modestly so that interactions outside the home are about business/shopping etc with no temptation.

Now, most of the time this doesnt happen in real life but thats down to the patriarchy subverting God's message. Women of all religions have been forming groups, fighting back, demanding the rights that are God given, same as athiest women in society. The two overlap to a huge degree. I wish athiest and religious feminists would stop sniping at each other and unite against patriarchal culture

It's also worth remember with all the discussion of the minutiae of religion, that men invented their patriarchal religions in order to oppress women. That's the root of them, nothing else. It's worked too.

Patriarchal religion is patriarchal culture Kal, it's one of the foundations of male supremacy. It's not sniping to desconstruct it, it's vital for the freedom of women and girls.

I dont believe either God (who is above gender) or faith is inherently patriarchal. I think it has become that way because men control all the power.
I think men will pay on judgement day which doesnt appeal for my desire for instant karma for misogynistic wankers where a Zeus like lightening bolt would suffice.

Loving the image of Zeus and the lightning bolt! :)

I agree that most of the major religious institutions are patriarchal, as are most of the institutions established in societies that follow patriarchal values. But say just because government structures are patriarchal doesn't mean democracy is inherently patriarchal. Just because educational establishments are run on patriarchal lines doesn't mean that learning itself is inherently patriarchal. Just because arts and culture institutions follow patriarchal structures doesn't mean arts and culture are inherently patriarchal.

I understand that some feminists seek to avoid any engagement with any patriarchal institutions (although that's nigh impossible in practical terms,) instead seeking to do away with them and replace them with completely new set ups that reflect feminist principles.

But, I also see why other feminists see the benefit of also working within institutions and systems to unravel patriarchal beliefs and with the eventual goal of completely reshaping them along feminist principles from within. I suppose the idea is that making SOME gains in the short to medium term will bring direct benefit to women and girls, and society in general, which will be alot longer way off if the only route to change is completely destroying institutions and starting afresh.

The god of Abrahamic religions is a male god. Man created them in his own image.

The reason why they've been able to get away with claiming he's ungendered is because he's male, and male is seen as the standard ungendered human and women the other.

If women want to work within religions to attempt to ameloriate their misogyny that's up to them, but to claim they aren't patriarchal or based on the fundamental misogyny of the men who created them is simply incorrect.

sorry, the Creator of the Universe, generally termed 'God' is not human and does not have a gender.

I am astounded that anyone could think that Islam is not patriarchal to it's very core. Mohammed had more than one wife didn't he? A man can chastise/beat his wife. Man and wife, not husband and wife. All about the property!!

Seems to me if God created man, he was sexist, if he just sent prophets he was sexist....God had ample opportunity to make the world a fairer place for women. He chose not to.

Sorry Kal, these are patriarchal beliefs, not feminist analysis.

Feminism is a political movement based on analysis of the material world - the world which we can see and happens around us. If we examine these religions it's perfectly clear that the men who created them designed god as a man. Religion is man-made.

The Semitic God is a sexist God, that's for sure, but I won't say any more about Judaism.

I remembered a little detail about some Quaker meeting houses in America. They'd all gather there for meeting, and of course everyone would be entitled to speak (or Quakers might say, God could choose to speak through anyone's mouth, because there is "that of God" in us all) but then there would also be meetings where they would discuss church or community business. And then it sometimes seemed as if women were intimidated about speaking in public, especially if they disagreed with their husbands. So there would be a movable partition, which would be rolled out to let them have separate women's and men's meetings. And after they reached a consensus on both sides of the screen, they'd fold it up and representatives from the two sides would negotiate the final plan--and as they were merely reporting a group opinion, there wasn't so much of an issue between couples. It's obviously not the greatest thing that they felt they had to have that segregation, but on the other hand they recognized what was happening and took a step to make sure everyone would be heard equally.

"women were intimidated about speaking in public, especially if they disagreed with their husbands"

Loving husbands in a marriage sanctioned by the church, eh?

The fact that women even had to sit in a room with them is the abomination. Why should women have to have anything to do with men who oppress and dominate us given half the chance.

we will have to agree to disagree nyac. I beleive in God. you dont. I do agree that organised religion has been a patriarchal tool though.

"Why should women have to have anything to do with men" links up with that recent thread about whether marriage is a good thing; women through the ages have actually wanted to marry men. Maybe it's sociobiology--the women who wouldn't accept men didn't pass their genes along, and that's how we're all in this mess and most of us don't want to get out of it. Just make it a little less messy, God, please?

TeiTua, I'm not sure if you misread, but my quote wasn't "Why would women have to have anything to do with men" it was "Why should women have to have anything to do with men who oppress and dominate us".

The quote was about a church full of women who couldn't speak because their husbands (their husbands!) intimidated them out of it. Women shouldn't have to have anything to do with men like that, but in fact it's seen as normal.

I'm a feminist and a Christian. I'm very liberal which helps interpret the biblical texts in a certain way. I don't give a monkey's how patriarchal societies interprets them, I interpret them in my own way.

So the quotes about submitting to your husband cannot be taken in isolation, they have to be taken with 'as your husbands submits to Christ' - meaning to my liberal christian husband that a man can't ask his wife to do anything Christ wouldn't ask him or her to do.

Also in the letter Paul writes about women having to cover their heads in church - that's a specific letter to a specific group of women who were using their church to berate the men as husbands because in the early Christian church women and men had authority, women preached too - all of which abandoned later by the main churches.

All of the problems with a patriarchal church come about because of man and patriarchal society and not because of God.

Well, if you want to correct the quote, do a full job:
"Why should women have to have anything to do with men who oppress and dominate us given half the chance."

There's a question there for the punctuation mavens (call for Lynne Truss!) of whether we can assume the equivalent of a comma after the word "men" there. Is it just certain men who oppress and dominate if they're able, or is it as Abigail Adams said (to her husband!) "All men would be tyrants if they could"?

But anyway, I don't think the Quaker men were necessarily shutting their wives up. In the context of a long time ago, women might well feel a compulsion not to disagree with their husbands in public, even Quakers. The individual men might not be able to persuade their wives about it, but together the congregations found themselves a solution. Not ideal, but pragmatic.

I think if a society is patriarchial, it will understand and promote patriarchy through religion and religion through patriachy (and the same is true of any other theory or ideology or practice - science, education, medicine - you name it). We're talking about Judaism, Islam or Christianity having 'male' gods or male prophets, but if you look at a religion like Hinduism (mentioned upthread as having goddesses), or religions like those of the Greeks and Romans (again, with powerful goddesses) ... they're still patriarchial. The patriarchy can use any tool, IMO.

For me, that is why I think the theology of Christ-as-mother is quite problematic too - in a way, yes, I can see why it is often cited as an example of respect for the female, but it also lends itself to deeply, deeply misogynistic binary thinking about what is inherent to masculinity or femininity. I think there is a real difficulty with any construction of a female deity in a patriarchial society.

TeiTua, that's a fairly good description of the structures of the Society of Friends in the late 18th Century. It's important to recognise at the time, there were virtually no platforms within any social, economic, political or religious institutions where women had a genuine voice.

There are many contemporary testimonies of Quaker women at the time of the confidence, empowerment and spiritual enrichment they gained through involvement in these early "women only spaces." It wasn't miles away from what women gain today from similar women-only spaces - the opportunity to share ideas and insights within a "safe space," which enables them to engage with wider structures of power and influence.

In any case, it wasn't long after that that the separate women's and men's meetings were laid down and meetings for business involved both men and women, with both taking on leadership roles. It was a step, part of a process of change towards realising the Quaker testimony on equality, and something driven by both Quaker women and men.

This is in my view an example of how "challenging from within" an institution (in this case a religious institution) resulted in a major transformation in belief and practice. If it happened with the Religious Society of Friends, why couldn't it happen with other faith groups?

Doom, that's the point I was trying to get at in my 12.35 post - that it's not just religious institutions that are patriarchal, but virtually all institutions. If the argument is that it's not worth the bother even trying to change religious institutions, does it also follow that feminists are wasting their time trying to change any other institutions "from within" that reflect patriarchal values?

If now, how do we get them to change? Will it happen from bashing at them from the outside only? Or, should we ignore their existence completely (and is that even possible?)

Well, it's not like we don't have the same discussion about other institutions - academia being the obvious one where lots of women feel it's pointless to try to change it from the inside. I don't know what the answer is but I think probably it's good there is a mix of approaches from different women.

I agree, it needs to be a mix of strategies. But, are some folks genuinely suggesting that feminists really shouldn't bother trying to change institutions from within? Of course I see the dilemmas involved in this. Same thing goes for challenging institutions that are racist, homophobic, etc. I'm just not convinced that the answer is to completely detach from them. I don't think it's actually possible to do so, even if one adopts a completely separatist approach.

Its impossible to ignore or avoid patriarchal institutions. Unless you can shop in a women's only cooperative that sources from pro feminist farms etc.

"There's a question there for the punctuation mavens (call for Lynne Truss!) of whether we can assume the equivalent of a comma after the word "men" there. Is it just certain men who oppress and dominate if they're able, or is it as Abigail Adams said (to her husband!) "All men would be tyrants if they could"?"

No, it's a question for me. I'm not talking about all men, I'm talking about men who oppress and dominate women.

But once again we're nitpicking about what's said about these men rather than focusing on their behaviour. Imagine a room full of men too intimidated to speak because their wives were bullying them. It's unthinkable.

I think if a woman wants to reconcile feminism with religious doctrine, good luck to her. Religions are, after all, made up by human beings and I would approve of the idea of any woman making up a convincing variation on any one of the major myth brands that prioritized women's wellbeing. After all, taking Christianity as an example, it's a myth brand that has been reinvented and reinterpreted time after time: a Christian can be a rightwing woman-hating buckethead, or a woolly liberal Anglican - or indeed go ahead and pick'n'mix another set of rules and priorities and call them Christian.