Women and Religion
Women and Religion

What I fail to understand is how some women,   with university education,
could possibly find any appeal in mass religions, most of which are
patriarchal, and have little room for a woman's voice.  
Almost all of them seek to suppress our sexuality and tell us that  our
proper role is to submit to men.  I cannot think of a well established
religion that tells
otherwise.  I like men, both sexually and otherwise, but most religious 
doctorine tells me that this feeling is wrong or sinful.
When a friend of mine, who lived on my floor in residence, married this
guy from an orthodox religious family, I was shocked to see the change
that this brought upon her.  She went from a strong, assertive, woman to
a quiet and submissive wife.  I do not fault her husband (although my 
boyfriend does) because he was playing out some well established role that
had been drilled into him from childhood.  I do rest blame squarely upon
my friend.   How could she be willing to trade her freedom for a religion?

While I believe that mass religion benefits no one, I believe it hurts
women most.   Reinterpreting the bible or koran or any other scripture
is a half solution at best, because the essence of the scripture remains
the same; namely, the subjugation of women.    Women inspired religions such
as Wicca, though promising, will ultimately fail because they are unappealing
(the idea of being a witch doesn't make me too comfortable), and they involve
a psychology of mass control.  Also remember that many noble ideas quickly
collapsed into wickedness after their founders passed on (eg. Saint
Francis of Assis founded the Francescans, who, though noble in their
original intentions, later presided over the Inquisition.)

36 responses total.

I believe in my religion, strongly...I don't think I am submissive.

Perhaps your friend was fulfilling a wife-husband role rather than
anything to do with religion.  Religion cannot change personality.

I was  raised to think I could do/be anything I wanted, and I am
raising my daughters & son that way.  

what kind of "orthodox"?

My religion (jewish) doesn't deny women's sexuality or require
submissiveness, either sexuality or in general.  In fact, ancient
writings require a husband to be sure he "satisfies" his wife.

Does your friend think she is submissive?  Or is she doing what she
wants and that is now different from your perspective?  

My mother is disappointed cuz I would rather stay home anad keep house
w/ my kids.  She interprets that to a subordinate role.  I don't.
I have an executive level job, but find the challenges of being mommy
both greater and more satisfying than managing billion dollar 
budgets.  She sounds like you sometimes...not fond of my
increasing leanings into our religion.  But, I am doing what I want, 
given a set of choices.  I make these choices because I am happy with 
them.  My personality hasn't changed, but she refused to accept that
I liked raising kids better than a career before...and now she thinks I've
been brainwashed by my husband.  But if you asked my frinds from my
teenage years, I'm the same.

United Methodists, the largest Protestant denomination, do not espouse
any of the concepts that #0 relates. Women are considered 100% equal,
and the hymnals and liturgies are now, for the most part, written and
recited in inclusive language ("God", not "He" or "Father". "People",
not "men" or "brothers".). 

*gender check*  Gerald Gardner, Alexander Sanders, and Raymond Buckland
were women?  GG is the most important influence on modern Wicca, and
Alex Sanders is second or third... I disagree that Wicca is a "woman
inspired" religion.  It was taken away from the het males about 20
years ago, but it wasn't inspired by women.
*Ahh.*
That said, what mean you by "mass control"?  I've never heard
that in conjunction with Wicca, except from conservative JudeoChristian
types who assume it's just another cult.  How much do you know about
Wicca, anyway?

re: 1
From the sounds of it your decision was based upon personal choice and
not upon religious ideology.  Some of my friends chose to raise families
instead of going corporate, I have no problem with that.  What I am
worried about is that some women return to religion and then
lose the ability to make choices (I think that men also lose the power to
choose when they embrace religious dogma, its just that they tend to get
the upper hand).  I'm not altogether convinced that religion does not change
personality.
re: 2
Actually it didn't come to mind while I was ranting but the Unitarians are
also similarly inclined.  But these, from a global perspective, are the
exception not the rule.
re: 3
All religions by establishing communion, seem, to me, to be exercising a form
of mass persuasion.  I am sorry if I implied that this was particular to
Wicca.  One of my friends from BC experimented with Wicca, but admittedly, as
she is my only source of information, I cannot claim to have any in depth
understanding of it.  "Women inspired", perhaps not, but "Women influenced"
certainly.

This response has been erased.

I'm still confused.  What do you mean by "communion"?  You mean that 
religions have their members get together?  If so, that doesn't 
necessarily mean that there is mass control.  I don't mean to be a 
pain, I'm truly confused... (plus irritated about something else).

Ever been in a mob, a rally, even a dance hall? That feeling of ecstasy
that comes from being part of a group.  That is communion.  People are
vulnerable in that state and religions take advantage of that vulnerability,
that openness to suggestion.  Communion doesn't in itself imply mass
control but communion is a mechanism for mass control.

I hate crowds.  I DON'T get a feeling of ecstacy from being in a group;
I get anxiety.  Pagan groups are small enough that they don't generally
bring this out.  That's why I'm confused by the comments:  I understand
after all, and disagree.

What puzzles me even more than why women follow the tenents of religions which
attempt to subjugate them, is why women have not insisted on changing those
aspects of the religions they follow.  

There is something to be said for being a "victim".  It pushes
a whole lot of responsibility onto someone else and leaves an
innocent residue.  I don't think women will force the necessary
changes until they're sure they'll want what follows.

I am really interested in the concept of powerlessness and women.  Learned
helplessness, secondary gains from being victimized, etc.  Not in the sense 
that I am seeking to hold the victim responsible for her victimization, but
in terms of understanding why it comes about and, of course, what can be
done about it.

Well, maybe what can be done about it is that women should be held
responsible for remaining victims.  I mean, what are we waiting for,
men to suddenly see the light and allow us a non-victim role?  How
silly.  The first step must be for women to see they must take
responsibility for where they are and where they are going.  

The concept of faith is a central tenet of any religion; the really 
powerful ones are the ones that prevent questioning that faith.  Bandied
about by the wrong people, very quickly those who adhere to the religion
become powerless.  Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, depicts such a 
scenario, and the rise of the religious right in North America seems to
suggest its plausibility.  I think that religious faith makes us victims,
and that as a woman, it is antithetical to my freedoms.  
I agree with chelsea that as women we must take responsibility for 
where we're going, and perhaps the first step should be to internalize,
and individualize our faith, and never again be willing to be told what
to do.  A religion of one, how interesting.
(I'm sure that's not original)

(Faith is not the central tenet of Unitarianism.)

(Unitarianism has faith that a person doesn't have to hold a particular faith.)

Faith doesn't necessarily make one a victim, Veena.  I feel you have a very 
cynical view of religion.  What if your faith in Deity includes the concept
that They love you and want you to be happy and live as you please as long
as you let others live that way... how is that restricting?  A tenet like that
is at the heart of most religions, including Christianity, ... just because
some schmucks have screwed it up is no reason to abondon it.  Take it
back from the schmucks, I say!

And here's an interesting thing to think about in response to miranda's
statement that the most powerful religions prevent questioning in that faith. 
I don't know if Judiasm is considered one of the most powerful religions.  It
is, of course one of the most enduring ones.  However, under Orthodox tenents, 
Jewish men study the talmud their entire lives, constantly questioning and
trying to understand and interpret what they read.  Orthodox Jewish women (at
least in the past) were not allowed or encouraged to study the talmud.

personnally, I believe that as long as organized religion exists, we
make ourselves victims to the whims of others, after all, they who rule
wield a pretty big stick - eternal condemnation, and ostracization from
the community.  Living in North America, but having travelled to countries
that do not share the same views on liberty, I have seen religion at its worst
so that when I hear about people taling about restoring morning prayer to
schools or talking about 'family values' or banning pornography, I begin
to feel just a little bit suspicious.  I have this image of religion as
a sleeping lion, beautiful to see when tamed, but terrifying when unleashed.
As a woman,  I feel that the uncertainties of the world is preferable 
to the certainties of religion, if it is to be accompanied by free and
rational discourse. 
I'm sorry I used the word patriarchy earlier, it is a cliche ridden word
that has been grossly misused, but I was pretty irritated with my friend.
I think that we women, upon reflection, have had just as much a hand
in the manifestation of religion as men, only we were stupid enough to
lose control of it.

Actually, the word patriarchy drives me meshugennuh (sp.?) because it
doesn't mean "rule by men", it means "rule by fathers"... England is
a patriarchy, at least historically.  America is an andrarchy, but 
nobody ever uses *that* word.  We should be an anthroparchy, but many
seps want us to be a gynarchy (rather than a matriarchy).

<brighn is having fun with word derivation.>

<chortle>  Just when I think life is becoming much too serious, you crack me
up with sematical nits.  Thanks, Brighn.

<brighn bows to MT... anyitime  :) >

For the record:

Tho' I would * prefer* to be home with the kids, I am "corporate" as 
Veena puts it.  Executive/suits/etc. in fact. :(


And, have you ever heard the expression of "put 10 Jews in a room,
and you'll have a dozen opinions"?  Judaism thrives on challenging, 
questioning, and asking.  Our most respected sages all argued.

What is wrong with faith?  I have faith that the sun will set this
evening, and rise in the morning.  And why?  Because of the laws of
nature.  And how were those laws set in place?  I accept God.  And I thank
God for letting me see the sun rise without fail each day, while others
thank the Goddess, or appreciate Nature itself, etc.

I have faith, but I am not enslaved.  I have made my own decisions.  I
have found that the most observant Jews  feel empowered.  Someone cannot
observe so many do's and don't's with out choosing to live that way.  And
they feel great joy in their lives for the choices they have made.

This response has been erased.

I'm glad that you feel comfortable with your religion.  I think thatt
what you've done is you've personalized it and have taken it away
from the schmucks to whom some reference has been made.  I think that
if more women did that religion would not be so (oops) oppressive.
Unfortunatel more people tend to take the package deal, the thing 
that comes with the annoying extras.  I think that when dealing with
religion one should keep in mind caveat emptor.
I'm not sure that science is a faith.  I had this argument with my
boyfriend many moons ago and he had some good points.  He said that
the difference between science and religion (I'm paraphrasing), is that
religion says that the sun will rise tomorrow whereas science says that
based on past experience, there is a 99.999999percent chance that the 
sun will rise.  I think my boyfriend would have a field day, as a 
prospective scientist,  if the sun didn't rise (he would also be dead
but that is beside the point).

FWIW, my opinion on sunrises as a Christian is that God promised
Noah continuing sunrises -- but Jesus might come back tonight, and
if He does, all bets are off.  So probably the sun will rise, but ...

  <<giving CPR to this dying item... breathe! breathe! 1 & 2 & 3 &4 &5!>>

As some of you may know, I am a Christian. And a feminist. Jerry Falwell says
that I can't be a Christian and a feminist at the same time, which I of course
think is B.S. Since when was it up to him to determine the state of my soul?
I grew up Southern Baptist, which is as conservative as they come. Women
cannot be ministers, deacons, pastors... they can teach SUnday School (tho
in some churches, they can only teach female classes since it would be "wrong"
to teach men). Needless to day, by the time I was 20 I decided I'd had enough.
I am visting a Presbyterian church now, which I like a lot. I'm not sur eyet
how this particular church (Independent) stands on women's issues, but I do
know they have ordained women as ministers and such. Can anyone who is
Presbyterian fill me in on this? I know it has different sects.

For those of you who know, please explain to this ignornat person
what the significance of wearing a headress by Indian, rather,
eastern women is, and why they have to do this?  

When I was in the Fairlane mall recently, I noticed that the women
were almost covered completely, except for the face.  They did
not walk abreast of the men, and seemed very "servile".  

These cultures which scream for blood when Allah is attacked and
claim they are truly enlightened are the first to subjugate women
because of some silly tradition?  

Your last sentence reveals a wee bit of prejudice/disdain.

[Hoagy, your perception is pretty accurate.  If you'd been talking
about, say, middle class wite American religious fundamentalists,
where the wife stays home and keeps the house and cooks for the
family, you could've used almost the same identical words and all
you'd've gotten was a lot of amens.  Say it about Arabs or Africans
or almost anyone else, and you'll be called prejudiced]

As far as I know, the Presby's tend to be pretty open about women.  They can
be deacons, I'm not sure about being ministers but I wouldn't be surpised if
it was Ok.

Re: 28.  True, but had hoagy been talking about American religious
fundamentalist homemakers we would have said a prayer for them
before saying "Amen".

In a lot of cultures, hoagy, having the woman walk somewhat behind the man
has nothing to do with being servile. It is done so that she is in a position
to be protected from attack.

Ah, that's so much bette.  She isn't servile, just helpless.
Thanks for clearing that up, Kae.  :)

        re: whatever ... Sure, walking behind someone *can* be interpreted
as a "protective" position, but anyone with .02 of sense knows that
attackers prefer to get you from *behind*, especially if a woman
is walking *behind* a man.  The man would have to stop, turn around,
and take half a moment to assess the situation.  
        It's a good theory, but a clever mask for real intent.
        And, yeah, I do believe that some cultures out there do
have extremely sexist veiwpoints and continue to display them
in public, even in this 'englightened' society we call America.

Which is precisely why, in our culture, men are supposed to walk next to women,
between them and the road.  An even better protective position,
while protecting the women's clothing from street slashes.
er splashes.

Perhaps to correct an irrelevancy, but I think the eastern women 
who are covered from head to toe out of modesty are the Iranians.  Locally,
(metro-DC area) we have many immigrants from Iran and India both.
The Indian women in saris have their faces uncovered, their hair visible, 
and weather permitting, bare arms.  From what I've been told, their clothes
are more comfortable for almost everything short of bike-riding!  Similarly,
Pakistani and some Indian women wear the other traditional garb of a 
long tunic over soft pants.  I  don't think these clothes relate to
a woman's role in society.

The Iranian chador to me insults men as much as women:  Men are
such stupid animals that if they see a female they will think and
act on sexual thoughts???  I feel the same way about the women's
section in traditional Jewish synagogues, too.

Good point Simcha. That's why I argue about women not being on submarines
"We get LONELY out there out sea and it would be dangerous for women!". Ha.
I hope men have more restraint to not screw the first thing they see. I have
power and the rules weren't as strict. She said the dress code of women
(exposing nothing but the eyes) is really protection for them, because it is
a way of saying "don't touch me" and men will leave them alone. While I'm not
as familiar with the culture, this sounds ludicrous to me. You're not supposed
to be hurting or harassing women, period. And girls are required to veil as
soon as they begin menstruating, so imagine being froced to drape in black
from the time you are 12 or 13?! My friend would like to go back to Iran but
she is afraid-- she's unmarried and not a virgin, which could lead to stoning
in Iran. I'm lucky to not live there... although the US discriminates in other
ways, keeps women back in other ways.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss