Feminism and Religion

[scottishdiem]

I was wondering what you all thought of this:

It really is time that women re-embraced the wearing of the veil, with the knowledge that it does not weaken us, rather it empowers by denoting our hallowed status as life-givers.

I have recently moved to Ireland and the dominance of the Catholic Church, although still very prevalent, is on the wane. I cant help think that this kind of think wants to put women back in a box. What do you think?

Whoops yes Vestal I missed out "apart from nuns".

My mother who was a fervent , but very pick and mix, Catholic used to wear a mantilla to mass when she lived in the south of France in the 1950s.

My mother's Catholicism stretched far enough to accommodate the pill and 2 divorces.

careful now you might have "fallen prey to the foul whisperings of feminists"

putting on a veil would have been an idiocy that'd have been quickly corrected by evolution.

I am not sure about this.

In Tudor times British women always had their hair covered. It was uncovered on their wedding day and then covered after that. I can't really remember the details but it was definitely the idea that showing hair was young and virginal.

I'm a Catholic and a feminist (although I know other many feminists wouldn't agree that I am one because of my views on abortion).

I voluntarily cover my head when I pray and for me it has nothing to do with fertility, bad hair days (I don't style my hair anyway, except for special occasions, so I'm unlikely to suddenly start thinking about who notices it in Mass when I don't care the rest of the time) etc. I couldn't care less what other women or men wear, on their heads or anywhere else, within reason. Just saying it so that next time you see a Catholic woman with a veil you don't immediately think we're all like the author here out to obscure/highlight our sacred feminine baby-carrying glory.

Fink, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask - why then do you wear it? What is it for?

I can tell you why my mother did- she liked the way it looked. It was an excuse to dress up with a pretty bit of lace. Nothing more profound than that. I'm certain my mother's fervent Catholicism, unlike my grandfather's tepid version, was wholly driven by bells, smells and ritual rather faith and a real belief in doctrine. She was firmly opposed to the end of the Latin Mass but conveniently ignored her use of contraception and 2 divorces.

I've no problem with dressing up but why it is tied to religion I don't know.

For me it has two main purposes:

One is to sort of 'get myself in the mood' for prayer, a bit like we (by which I mean people from many different faith traditions) often ring a bell at the beginning and end of meditation. It signifies a sacred space and time, and I remind myself of that with my body. I often remove my shoes too, for the same reason (and because I hate shoes and am much more comfortable without ).

Secondly it's a sort of 'do not disturb' sign to others. Because I work in the church I often get people who think that when they see me kneeling with my eyes closed is a perfect time to ask about the dress code for first communion or to pass a message on to someone else. The veil helps filter a few of these out, although I still get some.

Additionally, although this is by no means the primary motivation, it does give me a bit of a sense of solidarity with the centuries of women in the Church before me. Plus, if i wear a mantilla then it cuts out a bit of my peripheral vision so I concentrate better!

Feminism andsomeforms of religions are difficult to line up.
Agreed. And as a religious feminist can I just thank you for being nuanced in your comments rather than doing what may be predictable on this type of thread which is declare 'never the 2 shall meet'.

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity, fink.

That's interesting about you feeling the solidarity with the generations prior. You have the choice to wear it - they probably didn't. An important difference. And there's no resonance with you at all that it's a symbol of women being lesser, or sinful?

In Bridget Christie's book or radio 4 show she talks v briefly about being a Catholic and a feminist.

I suspect the European and (I think) Scandinavian version of wearing hats is those cultures where young girls can wear their hair down, but after they are married they must wear it up eg in plaits

My mother is of the generation and background (Northern, protestant working class) that would not dream of going to church without a hat, but men must always always take off their hat inside

The most odd religious hair / hat thing I have come across is the orthodox Jews who wear a wig so that only their husband sees their real hair

I get that they didn't have a choice and I do, but I'm not sure the majority felt oppressed by it. My living memory goes back three generations of women before me who were expected to cover their heads in church but it wasn't something they seem to have bothered about either way, it was just something one did.

A propros not much, under Elizabeth I there was a law that everybody in the country (men and women) except unmarried girls and gentry had to wear an English wool cap on Sundays. It was to prop up the English wool trade.

As for the lesser/sinful thing, yes, it is something I think about. And I get that the societal norms which gave rise to the practice were discriminatory against women. I suppose I feel more like I'm reclaiming it by voluntarily wearing it when it's unpopular, including amongst church authorities.

Women also have to cover their sensual, sexy hair in case they inflame the lust of men who are not their husbands. Poor men, so lacking in self-control.

Well the Abrahamic religions have their thing about women cause Eve ate the apple then tempted Adam.

I do find the idea of covering ones self to ensure that mens passions are not enflamed really odd. Its like women basically saying, yes men will rape me because of what I wear, my religion says so and its not mens fault.

Only Christianity (through TBH I don't know Islam 's position on Eve). No, it's the ancient, patriarchal view that women belong to men, pretty much universal across all cultures and faiths.

Only Christianity (through TBH I don't know Islam 's position on Eve). No, it's the ancient, patriarchal view that women belong to men, pretty much universal across all cultures and faiths.

The Qoran has a very similar creation story to Genesis (some slight differences in the detail), but the focus is very much on Adam (who is a prophet in Islam) rather than Eve (who doesn't have a name)

I will probably offend those with religious beliefs but I find it utterly impossible to understand how any one can take what is the bible or the Koran as being true. How do you accept this as the word of god?

lass
Faith.

I'm comfortable with doubt. I'm open to the fact that that different faiths may be similar routes to the same God. I like to learn more and question more. That process is part of believing to me.

As a very wise vicar said to me, the people who are the most certain are usually the most extreme and radical. It doesn't matter what your religion or if you are an atheist.

The most logical decision based on the evidence as we have it is to be agnostic. Any step either way is faith.

Those who claim to have the answers, either by their religion/version of religion being the only way, or militant atheists claiming there is definitely no God and people who believe are fools are actually 2 sides of the same coin and both should be treated with skepticism.

That's rather a dogmatic explanation in its own way. I don't believe god exists.

Nothing relating to faith or a god resonates with me in any way. I don't find the existence of an Abrahamaic deity any more plausible than Hellenic or Norse deities.

Why are they myths but the Abrahamaic god isn't?

I would hardly say it's dogmatic.

I'm a person of faith saying that the most logical explanation based on evidence is agnostic.
Any step either to God or no God involves an element of faith. I'm cautious of anyone religious or atheist who will tell me with certainty that their view is the correct way.

Norse mythology usnt an area I know much about, but the I'm a liberal who believes that there are many paths. I'll spare the theology chat from that or I'd be here all day. Not all stories in the Bible are literally true, but they tell us something of God. I would say something similar about norse myths.

Whatever individual views of religion, which may or may not be the only way, that is secondary to me to a belief in a deity. And that is possible even if you don't have 1 set religion.

I'm cautious of anyone religious or atheist who will tell me with certainty that their view is the correct way

I am not telling you it is the correct way. For me belief or faith in a deity is completely meaningless. I don't believe in any deity and I have no need for any deity. So it is the correct way for me.

By saying this The most logical decision based on the evidence as we have it is to be agnostic. Any step either way is faith. -you are presumably saying it is illogical to have a firm belief there is no deity?

I should perhaps have made clear on what basis are bible stories collated by who knows more credible than Greek, Roman or Norse myths, also collated by who knows?