1
   

Is Religion Inherently Misogynistic?

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 01:35 pm
Gala wrote:
I still don't know what you are saying. Coould you dumb it down for me? what I think you are saying is: You perceived females and males were treated equally in your religion.
I was covered in dust and glue and my brain was pizzled so OK before I get back to the bathroom floor here we go:

I am Jewish by ethnic origin only.
I have no religious leanings, although when I was young I went to Peretz School and visited the occasional Christian church and Jewish synagogue and was compelled to say the Christian lord's prayer daily in kindergarten and with some regularity in grades one through seven.

However, like many Jewish children who grew up in Vancouver BC Canada I was exposed to a blend of Jewish ethnicity, religion and culture in and outside the home. Also like many Jewish children who grew up in Vancouver BC Canada I was exposed to a blend of other ethnicity's, religions and cultures in and outside the home.

As to whether I had any early religiosity I am not sure exactly as I was never put to the test in terms of faith, nor was it strongly imposed despite my surroundings. I was exposed to some faith based views and some non faith based views.

I directly and personally perceived no bias against woman in the context of my Jewish ethnicity, religion and culture in and outside the home.

Now how the hell was that for a mouthful of clarity I ask yah?
.
.
.
.
Cool
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 01:54 pm
fresco wrote:
Gala,

No it is no longer a hygiene issue, unless medically indicated. Its origins are probably from a pagan fertility rite.

The point is that if done for religious reasons then Reform Jews are differentiating between the sexes from birth.


So it's for religious reasons, ritual, etc. But...it seems obvious for Reform Jews they are differentiating because, well, there are anatomical differences between boys and girls. Following history and tradition are powerful sustainers of any culture, religion.

But, if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty of it-- Reform Jews are probably doing it for the ritual, not because they value boys over girls (if this were the case then the Reforms would never allow women to be Rabbi's.) Whereas, in the Orthodox and Conservative Judaism boys/men are clearly favored.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:00 pm
But, Jews are imminently practical people-- for example, being Kosher came out of the dangerous combination of mixing meat with dairy in their cooking utensils, which were wooden. Over time, keeping kosher evolved into ritual. Clearly now, anyone can mix their ground beef in a stainless steel pot, wash it thoroughly and pour milk into the same container and drink the milk and they will not die of food poisoning.

And, circumcision began as a hygiene issue as well.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:04 pm
Chumly wrote:
I directly and personally perceived no bias against woman in the context of my Jewish ethnicity, religion and culture in and outside the home.

Now how the hell was that for a mouthful of clarity I ask yah?
.
.
.
.
Cool


Okay, it's clear now. You win a star for using your computer while renovating your toilet at the same time.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:06 pm
A star of david or just a regular sticky star?
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:09 pm
I was going to say the Star O' David, but decided not to seeing as you clearly stated you had no religious upbringing.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:14 pm
Gala,

Read the paragraph picked out by Phoenix above.

Health and hygiene issues were later rationalizations of pagan/religious practices. You are merely continuing the same folktale without being aware of it. It may have been the case that some of these practices had evolutionary survival value but "conscious knowledge" never entered into it.

Asherman,

Good synopsis !
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:23 pm
I prefer the pagan approach-- Although it's documented the boys will enter into some divine realm, I don't really care, especially because it's more interesting as a pagan ritual, it's also as well a hygiene issue a cosmetic one.

Besides, I still think there were some practical reasons for cutting off the foreskin.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:23 pm
Gala wrote:
I was going to say the Star O' David, but decided not to seeing as you clearly stated you had no religious upbringing.
What's the difference between "Star O' David" and "star of david", besides the obvious?

I am not sure how you figure I "clearly stated you had no religious upbringing" as I said somewhat the opposite.

Surprised
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:27 pm
Chumly, I meant no religious leanings and you said you are Jewish by ethnic origins only, which means to me you wouldn't care if it were the Star of David or just one of those regular grade school style stars.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 02:48 pm
Gala wrote:
Chumly, I meant no religious leanings and you said you are Jewish by ethnic origins only, which means to me you wouldn't care if it were the Star of David or just one of those regular grade school style stars.
Interesting point, but because I can separate the ethnic origin from the religiosity, does not automatically mean I do not care which star I would get. I think that Jewish symbols can be looked at as having two facets, one of religiosity and one of ethic origin. Would you not agree?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 05:33 pm
Any woman who wants to be a priest is probably a witch...if she floats, we'll burn her !
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 05:39 pm
Is Ivory Soap cursed?
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:05 pm
Chumly wrote:
Gala wrote:
Chumly, I meant no religious leanings and you said you are Jewish by ethnic origins only, which means to me you wouldn't care if it were the Star of David or just one of those regular grade school style stars.
Interesting point, but because I can separate the ethnic origin from the religiosity, does not automatically mean I do not care which star I would get. I think that Jewish symbols can be looked at as having two facets, one of religiosity and one of ethic origin. Would you not agree?


I would agree, however, I don't wear the Star of David because I see it as a religious statement, and I don't practice Judaism.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 07:47 pm
Re: Is Religion Inherently Misogynistic?
Phoenix32890 wrote:
In another thread, we were discussing abortion, and the rights of a woman. Thinking about it, I realized that many of the religions of which I am aware, have a definite bias against women, especially in the areas of reproduction and sexuality, but not exclusively in those areas.

Apparently, the more fundamentalist a faith, the stronger the bias is against women.



Quote:
Many religions and philosophies contain what could be called misogyny. Paul insisted that women should not talk in church ("women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." -1 Cor 14:34 NIV). In Hinduism, the Code of Manu makes women incapable of ever being independent. At times in Indian history, it was customary for a woman to be pushed onto the funeral pyre of her husband (see sati). In Islam, some interpretations of Sharia law forbid women to show any part of their body in public except their face, hands or the top of their feet. There is, however, wide disagreement from followers of these religions that these various teachings are misogynistic.

The 16th century Protestant reformer John Knox wrote a book called The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in which he argued against the ability of women to govern.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

Have you ever perceived a bias against women in your religion? In what way? Why do you think that this has developed, and why is it so pervasive all over the earth?


Hey Phoenix,

I've been thinking this over and I have a possibility worth considering:

Religion is not inherently misogynistic.
Rather misogyny exists, (and mostly always has, due to "might is right" darwinian principles ) and religion inevitably has been developed as part of that social "norm" .

Perhaps religion seems more inherently misogynistic today due to the fact that religion is far more resistant to change than anything else, and the more fundamental the religion, (ie the further back in time the laws of your religion are based), the more misogynistic your religion is likely to be.

In other words, misogyny has infected religion rather than religion being the initial cause?

Just a theory. Smile
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:03 pm
Eorl- Interesting. I will have to think about it. I'll be back!
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 07:29 am
One of the perplexing paradoxes of religion I encounter when I try to understand its sway on people is although it's obviously misogynistic, it is women who often are the ones trying to incubate and nurture the religious instinct in families. In most general terms in American culture, many men appear content to spend a Sunday morning horizontally on the couch, but are often goaded by the female to don a suit and tie and drive the brood to church. The question to me becomes: why would a female willingly and actively try to keep this overt oppression alive?

The only answer I've thought that can explain this quandary is that there is nothing more powerful or dangerous to a tribe than a young woman, and all these religious trappings are little more than a way to control this amazing creature. She must be taught very early on that her baubles are worth less than actual price, and grandma is watching her every move from a slit in heaven's floor. By the time she figures it all out--and most don't--the threat has subsided and it's her turn to outfit the chains and blindfolds on to her own dimpled darling.

I may be way off on both counts (the female lead in religious instruction and the sex angle) but that's the way I see it.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 12:59 pm
I haven't read any but the first page of this thread, but the trend seemed to be that religion used to be anti-women but has now cleaned up its act. Outwardly, this appears to be the case. But I think that the anti-female is inherent or implied in Christianity and always will be, that taken literally Christianity is anti-feminine and anti-nature.

Christianity in its early development decided to split from nature and become supernatural, that is, its virtues were deemed to impose itself on nature from above supernaturally rather than it virtues blooming or rising from nature as its perfume.

Nature, the physical, is without a doubt feminine, whereas, intellect or thought is masculine. The masculine or patriarchal church stresses dogma and the authority of the written word with its myths and symbols taken literally, whereas a feminine church stresses religious experience and nature.

Anything that approaches nature worship and any attempt to take Christian myths metaphorical is tantamount to heresy in the church's eyes.

In conclusion, no overt antagonism toward women is permitted within the church so long as they kowtow to the church's patriarchal literal interpretation.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 01:30 pm
There seems to be a tendancy here to over-generalize, and to think of religion almost exclusively as defined by the Abrahamic sects. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, when looking at religion in a broader sense we find as many Mother/female oriented systems as male/Father syestems.

Emphasis on Abrahamic-style monotheisim also limites how we think of "God". In a larger and more open-minded definition, "God" doesn't necessarily have to be Male, Female, or any other manifestation. Buddhist notions of Ultimate Reality, for instance, can just as legitmately be called "God" as the Abrahamic "God in the Image of Man". The fundamental force or forces that makeup our world and remain beyond the control of sentient beings, are labled, and often those labels refer to that which is readily evident to the perceptions. Those labels are just that, labels. Folks need to get beyond such and try to touch the experience of the divine that lies hidden behind and beyond words.

Indeed, monotheistic systems that claim a god who excludes all other definitions of "God" not within their own label, are chauvinistic and down-right dangerous as the history of the Abrahamic religions has shown.

The bottom line here is that folks need to be much more thoughtful and specific in their praise or criticism of religion in general. Not all religions are the same, even though it may be argued that all spring from the same source(s). Even within a grouping, like the Abrahamic religions, there are really extreme differences in doctrine and dogma. Christians and Muslims, it sometimes seems, would almost as soon kill one another for religious reasons as us poor infidels.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Mar, 2006 01:47 pm
I will insert here the caveat that Buddhists kill, too, and have historically been disruptive influences in both Chinese and Japanese society. If i haven't aired it yet in this thread, i will now, at the risk of repeating myself. I have scant respect for Buddhism as i have learned of it historically, because it has flourished in peasant societies among peasants, in circumstances in which its more fervent adherents abandon the effort to improve the conditions of the lives of peastants, which means that women and children suffer while your average Jetsun-Milarepa goes off to fight the demons. No religion which abandons the day to day struggle for life that all poor and working class people face is a friend to women.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 06:06:11