Religion and women

[RaphaelHuard]

Hello everyone. This is my first post. I recently became a convinced feminist and would like to polish my ideas, so that my argument are stronger when i speak on that specific subject.

Here is one of my idea about religion and feminism.

In my opinion, religions that demonised women are the very reason why they are treated as being under men in most, if not all country.

When even your religion convince you that men is above women, it explains alot.

Knowing that we, humans, are easily influenced, you then understand why men really do think they are above women.

In the bible, there is several part where it is displayed. I know they say things like: "He is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man."

So you see, it is women, then men, then god above them all. In that order. Do we really need to structure relations between us? Are we obsess by hierarchy that much? Why do men feel the need to have power over there own specy like that?

All it does is helping divide the two genders. But we are way stronger united.

Without a companion, wether it is a man or woman, we feel weak. With a companion, we feel like we can accomplish anything. It is about time we learn to appreciate the opposite gender.

There are other places in the Bible where it clearly states that all are equal. The way I see it , which is not a popular view these days, is that it is about roles, not about power or importance. At work,I do not consider my line manager to be a more important/better person than me, she has a role, at work, that involves managing me though. The Bible suggests that in a marriage, the man is 'head'. That is not an assumed position.It only works if the wife puts him in that place. If the wife does not agree then it is pointless. I have been married for 12 years and although we are a partnership,if there was a major issue we completely disagreed on,my husband would have the final say. In 12 years,it has only happened once as I wanted to baptise our babies and he wanted them to decide as adults whether to be baptised. He had the final say and I accepted that graciously. He does not lord it over me and I am not a doormat.We are a team. There is only a problem if a man sees his 'headship' as a way of controlling his wife. In the Bible,where it says a woman should submit to her husband, the next verse says that the man should love his wife as he loves himself. You cannot take one verse without the other and you cannot make sense of either if you are not a Christian as it is based on the relationship of the Trinity where although God is one being, Jesus was 'subject' to Gods will. I am not sure that I wrote any of that very clearly but all I can say is that it works for us and I feel no sense of oppression.

Are you talking about religion in general or the Judaic group?

Religion is just another outgrowth of society: it is infused with social norms just as it imposes them. It is a conservative influence. It does take on a life of it's own and impose outdated values, eg christianity and the west, but ultimately it will change with the rest of us. I wish it would go competely, and a bit faster than that please.

It would be very surprising if, in a world/time where men had more power, religious writings produced largely by men expressed the view that things were the wrong way round, wouldn't it?

Raphael: this is a chicken and egg situation. Does religion justify the placing of men above women or did men use religion to justify placing themselves above women?

For vdb religion works and she is happy with her role. Fair enough.

For others, myself included, I see religion as a tool used to keep women in a particular box, whether or not she feels she fits into that box. I don't, which is why I am not religious.

" There is only a problem if a man sees his 'headship' as a way of controlling his wife."

And there is a huge problem because this does happen, a lot. And whole churches (and religions) justify it and condone it and in some cases, actively encourage it.

Translation = what feels like 'reality' today only feels that way because over time, that's how they have ended up. But with a different history, our reality would be different as well.

Well, yeah. If only the pope who was in charge when Charlemagne was looking for power hadn't been a shrewd political player. If only at whatever synod it was the celtic church hadn't accepted rome's supremacy (I had a bit more sympathy for the celtic church). If only Paul hadn't spread Xtianity in the first place and Constantine hadn't picked it up (or whover the actors were). You can play what-if's forever and many historians occasionally do. Tis fun.

(On the other hand - what if the eastern roman empire hadn't survived, albeit so altered, until 1453 (usual reckoning). Potentially no europe.

to vdbfamily:

"There is only a problem if a man sees his 'headship' as a way of controlling his wife."

Well this is a true problem, as way too many men see there "headship" as a way of controlling there wife. Why would one need to be established as the headship. No need in my opinion. It only help people think they have power over the other.

"the next verse says that the man should love his wife as he loves himself."

There is a difference between loving your partner and having power over a women according to your strongest beliefs in my opinion. Where love is noble, power entitlement is archaic.

Perhaps there is some verse where they say both are equal, i do hope so, as it would be very archaic to believe in something that create a separation between gender.

Feminism was a fertiliser for the growth in many pagan paths, such as the Dianic tradition, and though Wicca was founded by a man, it has been influenced by many strong women. So I don't think it fair to say all religions are this skewed.

Of course, Hinduism has many strong female deities, yet women still have a long way to go to get anything like equality in many cultures with a high Hindu population.

to LightingOnlyStrikeOnce:

I think that organised religions are keeping humanity from evolving. Just look at how many people got burn alive because of there ideas that were not accepted.

Sad part is, the vast majority of those ideas they were burn alive for centuries ago are today accepted. Religions are scared of new ideas, evolution. When it is in my opinion the most important things for a society to evolve. And evolution is the true goal in life, not keeping your head in the sand.

And of course, the majority of humanity believe there religion like if it was the absolute truth, instead of asking them selfs questions. There is such hate toward new ideas, just like feminism.

to BuffyBotRebooted:

I do have a big problem with organised religion. I have no problem at all with spirituality, but religion on the other hand is problematic.

Do you know that hell was created by the catholic church, to control men by fear?

Now that is what i call control freaks.

to YonicScrewdriver:

Well that is very true. Men never let the place women could have taken. Why is there not a single women who wrote in the bible during the 1500 years it was written? I think it says it all.

to grimbletart:

I think it is far from the chicken and egg situation. My father was to me, a great philospher and poet. He walked to us alot about that concept, that was very important to him, as it was impossible to answer.

But men gaining power over other trough religion is answerable.

"Does religion justify the placing of men above women or did men use religion to justify placing themselves above women?"

It is both!

I wanted to say: He talked to us... In my previous post

We cannot edit our post here? Or do i just not see the edit button?

to: ifyourehoppyandyouknowit

That is exactly why i have a big problems with religions.

Thank you everyone for all the answers, it is very much appreciated :)

Yep, other religions are different, world. Keep saying I should look up modern wicca. I like Japanese shintoism too, what I know, celebrating the natural life around us sounds like a much better way to go than vengeful sky demons. Raphael, organised religion can certainly be a conservative influence and yes with Xtianity I tend to agree, but there were good elements too.

" Are we obsess by hierarchy that much". An interesting one. I started to waffle standard stuff about different societies and structures but deleted it. Shorthand: different cultures, different hierarchies, not necessarily connected to religion, connected to settlement patterns, population, 'social choice' - we need some hierarchy with these population levels, but could manage with less. I keep saying this lately: Durkheim on sociology of religion is interesting.

Oh yeah, I think there are similarities between Wicca and Shinto - I think - but as world said Wicca, drawing on Celtic traditions, is quite feminist oriented, whereas Japan is famously v v sexist. Not just religion then, though yes it is used as an excuse.

I find this really hard to describe to people. My husband only has power over me because I willingly give him that power. I am 6'1" and I am quite a larger than life personality. My husband is quiet and has never once raised his voice at me. He would not naturally dominate me in any sense but I see him as 'head' of our family and so I put him in that position. As I said previously, we work as a team and there is only ever an issue if we fundamentally agree on something important to both of us. Someone has to have a final say and I allow that to be him and that stops us having a massive fallout about the issue. I agree and have witnessed within my extended family, men using this idea of headship to subjucate their wives. I am not sure why the wives have put up with it really! I guess it is because historically women have been in a more vulnerable position,without an independent income and unable to assert themselves for fear of losing everything. Hopefully that will start to change but I think that sadly the main preoccupation of most teenage girls/young women, still seems to be to find themselves a man. When they learn that there is so much more to life and fulfillment, they might hold out for someone half decent who will respect them.

vdb; can you explain why you want him to be the head. Genuine question. I find it baffling that an accident of birth (i.e. the sex you are born) is the determining factor.

When my husband and I fundamentally disagree about something, we both compromise.

to vdbfamily:

Why would your husband have power over you? I think that statement where you say that you willingly give him power over you, reflect the problem very well.

As grimbletart said, why would you want him to be the head? Cant you both be equal? Why someone above the other?

And like ifyourhoppyandyouknowit said, why not compromise? It makes alot more sense than giving power to one over the other, in my opinion.

I think it is rooted deep inside of our culture that men are above women. And i think religion helped that concept grow stronger alot during the past milleniums. But in 2015, we need to evolve.

I'm a Christian and a feminist. I believe Christ empowered and uplifted women.

But I agree that a lot of organised religion - most - is sexist and patriarchal.

My husband and I are equals - neither are above the other. I don't subscribe to the whole 'headship' thing like vdbfamily does - I believe it can be damaging to relationships.

So give me an example of how to compromise when I felt our children should be baptised as babies and he felt they should not be. How do you work that one out? Fortunately I did not subscribe to the belief that their souls were in any way in peril should they not be baptised otherwise the situation would have been more difficult, but at the end of the day, one of us had to make the final decision. Sometimes a decision has to be made that one of you strongly disagrees with.They are often big decisions and when couples disagree they can lead to major disruption of the relationship. We as a couple discuss issues and generally come to an agreement. We do not disagree about much. If there is a major issue we fail to agree on, he has the last word. It has only happened once in 12 years.It is the way we choose to function and I believe it is a Biblical model (other Christians dispute that) and I feel no way a lesser person in our relationship for it.
As for trying to explain why I choose to live like that, apart from seeing my parents model it successfully and happily and the fact that I believe it to be a Biblical model, I think there is still an instinct in many women(that no-one on the feminist forum would subscribe to) that makes her want to feel safe and looked after whilst she sits in her 'nest' with her babies whilst her hunter gatherer husband keeps everyone safe and provides for them. I think this is why many women find it hard to relate to feminism because whilst feminists are often fighting not to be stereotyped as that type of women, there are many women who still want to live like that. They should be allowed that choice without being ridiculed or accused of letting the side down. There is one group who wants to make out we are all the same and just conditioned into male/female and there is an opposing camp who want to enjoy and celebrate the differences between male and female and enjoy how a combination of the two can bring a completeness that you cannot know as a single person. I guess there is a bit of that in me too. I have a career in healthcare and really love my job and my DH and I have taken turns to be SAHP but when my kids were little,I instinctively wanted to be the one at home with them until they were all school age and that seems to reflect the age old model of hunter gatherer head of family and nurturer/homemaker.
Sorry that is a bit of a ramble. I'll have all the feminists wringing their hands in despair and the Christian feminists feeling I am giving Christianity a bad name but I can only say it works for me. If men are using that sort of Biblical teaching to oppress their wives then they are not being loving or Biblical so it is not the fault of the teaching, but the man who is misapplying it!

Well, vdb, you can "surrender" to other principles. Say - if you can't agree, the status quo rules (which would have given you the same outcome on the baptism question). Or you flip a coin. Or you each get one veto a year so whoever feels so strongly they use it wins. Three ideas off the top of my head.