How CAN you be religious if you are a feminist?

[SolidGoldBrass]

Given that misyogyny is absolutely inherent in Christianity, Islam and the rest (even when they try to dress it up as saying they 'revere' women and women are 'special' it;s still about women being defined by men as not quite human), how can a woman follow any of these myth systems without accepting that she's less than fully human and her imaginary friend thinks so too, otherwise why wouldn't it have smashed the patriarchy already?

madhair, so sorry to hear about your friend, that's really awful. I hope you have lots of supportive people around you.

dittany: "I hope you don't end up getting to make the rules Speedy". I very clearly made a request, and asked people how they felt about that. That is totally different from 'making the rules', isn't it? Twist it if you like.

Now, as for this point about not knowing much of the Bible vs not understanding it, yes the two are different. However, if you don't know much of it, how can you possibly claim to understand it? And how can you claim to understand it better than academics who have made it their life's work and confess that it's taxing? I know a little about how the brain works, but never in a million years would I claim to understand it better than a neurologist.

Speaking of which, my knowledge of the brain may have come from my degree course but my knowledge of the Bible hasn't. I know some people on this thread have degrees in theology, but you shouldn't presume that that's the basis that I'm arguing from.

Have you searched for that quote from the Bible that says that male and female together make God's image? You seem to keep denying it exists, yet I note that you're happy to search for other biblical passages which seem to confirm what you want to believe.

I'm gutted to have missed episode 1 of Banishing Eve, however, my DH summarised it as follows:

Until around the 10th century (I think I've got that date right), if you had asked anyone who built the Christian church, they'd have said: women. Women were instrumental in every aspect of running the church, leading, teaching, etc etc. It was only later on that certain male church leaders decided to clamp down on this and dominate the women in their communities.

There's also information about certain books of the Bible which were either written by women, or which primarily tell the stories of women, which were long ago cut out of the Bible.

This says very clearly to me that it is the 'standard' patriarchy that stems from bigotry within society which has led to the patriarchy which has dominated women within religion.

With this in mind, it seems a relevant question to ask the following: since 21st century life still places women in a lower position to men in many ways, why do women not simply absent themselves from male society and go ahead and create their own society which is devoid of misogyny? This is the same question which is being asked on this thread of women's involvement in religion. Certainly there are pockets around the world where women do this (dittany, I believe you once posted on a thread about a group of Kenyan women who created a women's village because they were so fed up with the maltreatment they were being subjected to - it was you, wasn't it?). So if the answer to the problem of patriarchy within religion is for women to remove themselves, surely the answer should be the same for the problem of patriarchy within society as a whole?

onagar, I was actually referring to you in the first part of that post you quoted, where I wrote about people who have set views making sweeping generalisations. Apols if I'm wrong here, but this is very much how some of your posts have come across, for example you said: "People don't trust a church because they see evil people going there, but because they see good people going there and take that to mean it must be a safe place that teaches good things." - you're referring to all churches here, saying that women who participate in church life are supporting the patriarchal aspects of the church. Yet this statement assumes that (1) all churches are patriarchal; (2) all churches are not "safe places that teach good things". Neither of these statements is true. There are good and bad people within churches, just as there are good and bad people within society as a whole. There are certainly some churches (and other, non-religious organisations) where a culture of causing harm has developed, but they do not represent the whole and it is erroneous to assume that they do.

I think you've also assumed that I'm a Catholic, which I said earlier that I'm not.

Am not coming on to debate, bit sad though in no way like Madhair who I hope is OK tonight.

Speedy that development of the Church (mainly women) is how I learned it happened. The patriarchy developed. Women were significant- some of the non-used gospels (Is it Thomas?) show that.

If you have a genuine faith you cannot remove yourself from it. Any more than you can remove yourself from this world. It is too fundamental.

Earthymama: "I think that posters on here hold strong views and are listening to other opinions but then stll disagreeing and arguing their POV? Isn't that what we are supposed to do in a debate, honour other people's voices but stick to our guns?"

Yes, that's what debate is about, but not discussion. Debating is a game, whereas discussion is about connecting, which requires a level of openness that is detrimental to debate. I'm not the first person to say MN (and surely won't be that last) that it's very common to have a debate/ discussion mismatch between two posters, and where that happens neither person understands each other, everyone gets pissed off and there's no progress. That's probably what's happening here!

Clarissimo - I'm so sorry to hear that you're having a tough time as well.

I'm not sure whether Thomas is one of those non-used Gospels...this whole area of the historical role of women in the church is one of the billion life issues which I intend to investigate far more deeply as the years go on.

dittany: "I think women need to create our own cultures and stop trying to twist male patriarchal culture to fit us." It sounds like you're saying that your ideal way of life would mean living without men altogether. Is that right?

Earthymama - tell us more about the Pagan Christian you mentioned. Never heard of such a thing before, so I'm intrigued!

No, dittany, that question was not meant to come across as aggressive. I was seeking clarification of what you've been saying, rather than jumping to conclusions.

What you're suggesting about women 'centring on ourselves' is rather vague, though. Since we know that society (and therefore our culture) as a whole (in the UK, at least) has run along mostly patriarchal lines for centuries, how else can women 'centre on themselves' and create their own cultures without rejecting patriarchal cultures in order to do so? You have been arguing that women should do exactly this with regard to religion - hence my 'leap of logic' as you put it. I was extending your own argument, not mine. Why do you think women should do things one way for religion and another way for society as a whole?

dittany, I addressed my question to your ideal way of life because you stated what you think women need to do. I'll post it again: "I think women need to create our own cultures and stop trying to twist male patriarchal culture to fit us."

I'm off to bed now.

Just wanted to say thanks for all your messages of support. It's just typical of MN that on a heated thread about feminism and religion that people take the time to show concern for someone. I really appreciate it.

Probably not quite got the headspace to join back in for now, though.

Dittany- no not a recent development that would be absurd! Just that the earloy inoput of women in the faith (adn what I wearlier referred to as the Cult of Christ rather than Church) was wiped out by the developing patriarchal role of the Church

IYSWIM

'Maybe women did make slight inroads, once again that doesn't make christianity a non-patriarchal religion, in the same way having a few female vicars doesn't' make anglicanism non-patriarchal now.'

Agreed but I like the fact that it moves forward. That is progress and I celebrate progress.

Madhair I nknow I said it yuesterday but anyway- hugs again.

Speedy thanks. Dh's Uni timetabling meant I have to give up my MA for the time being (DH's place funded for income mine not) so am a bit sad but no childcare is a sod at times.

dittany, tbh I find the way you're posting - both here and on other threads - quite manipulative. I'm not the first person on MN to tell you this: you come across as someone who's playing games all the time, which is not what I'm here for at all. Your claim that I came across as aggressive because I asked you about what are your ideals is one example of this. Life is personal, and feminism, religion, and all other major life issues are personal. How could they not be? To try to have a discussion about these issues without involving the personal is to cut out what makes them meaningful.

Clarissimo - oh, that must be really frustrating. I'm sure it's hard enough trying to balance academic study with family life and everything else, but to then have to give that up for any length of time and for any reason must be gutting.

Madhair - huuuuuuuge hugs to you. And more huuuuge hugs.

Madhair, my [belated] sympathies to you as well, I went to the funeral of a dear friend on Monday.

As to women's societies and particularly women's religious/spirital environments without men, there's Aristasia. Which, while most definitely NOT for everyone (or everyone female for that matter) is interesting on dozens of different levels.

SGB, really sorry to hear about your loss as well. Huge sympathies to you.

Your Aristasia link looks fascinating. Quite alien to me, but fascinating nonetheless.

No I don't think the original Christians used women: I think rather that OWmen were the main instigators and men possibly rather heavy handedly took it over from them. It's complex though; men absolutely wrote the woemn out when selecting tetxts but equally they beleived they had prayed and were guided by the divine hand of God etc. I imagine it was really just teh not so divine hand of bog standard historical patricarchal culture.

Your point about doublethink- I had a bit of thought on that over a few days. TBh I thin a lot of faith is doublethink, it certainly is not limited to feminsim. I am quite opejn on MN that my faith ahs beena crutch to get me through some really ahrd times and if all it is really is a crutch then that is OK with me tbh. But absolutely faith for me is doublethink in many ways- the OT for example makes me gasp with disgust in palces (blessed is he who takes their children and dash them against the wall) and much of it is completely against my world view- anti gay movement for example.

But there is a lot of fodder for thought in there too, and that has value. I did a project on Dinah in year 2- have a great books oemwhere all about her and the culture at the time (feminism, rape, female sexuality etc) and I am mroe than happy to lend it out asuming I didn't give it to the library (dont think I did but I did some). If women all turned our backs entirely on Christianity and walked away tehre would be muich left unlearened, many avenues unecplored. Instead I think it is better to point out where women are short changed, to consider how it can be rectified. I knkow a few very nice female Vicars, both RL and online, and every day they wake up, go to work and succeed in their role does a thousand times more for feminism than any anger about the past an do.

SGB sorry about your friend. I've lost close friends over the years and it is a really, really shit thing to happen.

Speedy: Aristasia is kind of alien to everyone who is not an Aristasian. I know a bit about them and have met some of them (in the days when they had an 'embassy' and would socialise with 'Tellurians') - don't want to become one but they do fascinate me. Partly because they are an example of a group of women building a women-only culture and spirituality/philosophy. On one level I think they're nuts but no more nuts, and certainly no more socially harmful, than a lot of other religions/cults/alternative societies.