Religion and feminism

[Joykins]

Are they compatible?

[LoneWolf]

Maybe religions like Buddhism. As for the Abrahamic religions? You'd have to liberalize the interpretation of the religion to the point of being unrecognizable IMO.

[Jobar]

I'm not aware of a single Abrahamic sect or denomination which is really comfortable with feminism, even the more moderate versions of feminism.

Given the clear patriarchal nature of all the Abrahamic scriptures- God is emphatically male, females are weak and sinful vessels, agents of temptation- what else would you expect?

Would you argue any differently, Joykins?

[premjan]

Goddess religions.

[hecaterin]

I have a distant friend who's an Anglican minister. I think. Or maybe she's Uniting Church. She's alarmingly like the Vicar of Dibley. Anyway, some churches are fine with women as equals.

[Faerie]

Not in this country. One of the Top reasons why I believe organised religions to be evil. I'm no feminist, I love treating and spoiling my b/f, but I've got a brain, and I do kind of like to use it from time to time, most organised religions require complete submissiveness from women to their partners/fathers, this I'm afraid, does not sit very well with me. An observation I've made in our Afrikaner culture here, married women are invariably religious, divorced women, atheist.

[Valheru]

^^^ I actually just remembered something. A stoner theory of last night, and I'm going to verify it.

If you take the number of female saints versus the number of male saints in the Catholic religion, you will get a sort of "male chauvinist quotient" that represents the gender inequalities that the religion commits and (silently) endorses.

I'll get back to ya.

[DMB]

This is an interesting book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0312293062/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

It is about fundamentalist forms of religion. No religion emerges as exempt from the charge of suppressing women.

Of course, once you move away from fundamentalism, all sorts of positions become possible.

[Valheru]

Catholic.org lists around 780 female saints. The number is slightly higher because the number of entries is 778 but some entries contain multiple women (eg. Sts. Harlindis and Relindis), but it's still less than 800. I'll round it up to 1000 for simplicity's sake (and because I'm feeling generous towards religion on this day of our Lawd in the year 2009).

According to Wikipedia, the total number of saints and beatified individuals in the catholic church exceeds 10,000, so (conservatively) assuming that as an upper limit, you have 1000 women versus 9000 men.

If you take these rough numbers, you get a feminist quotient for the catholic church of 1:9, or 10%.

That's not very egalitarian, now is it? Not that it should be in any way surprising.

[David B]

Are they compatible?

Religion and feminism being compatible?

There are feminists who self identify as Catholic, and who argue for female emancipation and reproductive rights within the Catholic Church. They do seem to be a minority, but then feminism is much younger than the Catholic Church.

Here is an example of the writing of one such

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/1586/catholic_bad_girls_or_good_catholic_women%3A_bridg ing_the_generation_gap/

I'd suggest that it is too early to call whether feminism can transform the Catholic Church

The CoE has, after much soul searching, started ordaining women priests, as some other Protestant sects.

The role of women within Hinduism seems much more complex, according to wiki. Perhaps because the gender, (if applicable) of a putative supreme being (if any) is not as clear cut as in Abrahamic religions.

There is a wide variety of viewpoints within the different schools and sects of Hinduism concerning the exact nature and gender (where applicable) of the Supreme person or being; there are even sects that are sceptical about the existence of such a being. Shaktism, for example, focuses worship on the goddess Devi as the supreme embodiment of power, or Shakti (feminine strength; a female form of God). Vaishnavism and Shaivism both worship Lakshmi with Vishnu and Parvati with Shiva respectively as beings on an equal level of magnitude (the male and female aspects of God). In some instances such as with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, specific emphasis is placed on the worship of God's female aspect (Radharani) even above that of her paramour Krishna. Thus it could be said that Hinduism considers God to have both male and female aspects, as the original source of both.

It seems that there are feminists within Buddhism, as this rather long piece shows.

http://www.akashavana.org/index.php?static=articles_feminismAndBuddhism

I've even found thw wiki article on Islamic Feminism interesting.

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

My quick read through of a few articles leads me to the view that feminism is compatible with most religion, though in practice some religions and some sects have been more male chauvinistic than others. The Christianity that emerged after the suppression of texts like the Gospel of Mary Magdaline being more male chauvinist than most, until the rise of feminism in the 20th century, which is slowly having an impact on some Christian sects.

Feminism does seem to be much more the norm in a secular context, though. The idea of staff posts being reserved only for males in a forum like this, for instance, is ludicrous.

David

[DMB]

Catholic.org lists around 780 female saints. The number is slightly higher because the number of entries is 778 but some entries contain multiple women (eg. Sts. Harlindis and Relindis), but it's still less than 800. I'll round it up to 1000 for simplicity's sake (and because I'm feeling generous towards religion on this day of our Lawd in the year 2009).

According to Wikipedia, the total number of saints and beatified individuals in the catholic church exceeds 10,000, so (conservatively) assuming that as an upper limit, you have 1000 women versus 9000 men.

If you take these rough numbers, you get a feminist quotient for the catholic church of 1:9, or 10%.

That's not very egalitarian, now is it? Not that it should be in any way surprising.

Why not just list the female popes? :D

[Valheru]

Why not just list the female popes? :D

I believe that would lead to a skewed impression of the church's obvious attempts at gender equality throughout the ages. :bang::D

[Joykins]

Catholic.org lists around 780 female saints. The number is slightly higher because the number of entries is 778 but some entries contain multiple women (eg. Sts. Harlindis and Relindis), but it's still less than 800. I'll round it up to 1000 for simplicity's sake (and because I'm feeling generous towards religion on this day of our Lawd in the year 2009).

According to Wikipedia, the total number of saints and beatified individuals in the catholic church exceeds 10,000, so (conservatively) assuming that as an upper limit, you have 1000 women versus 9000 men.

If you take these rough numbers, you get a feminist quotient for the catholic church of 1:9, or 10%.

That's not very egalitarian, now is it? Not that it should be in any way surprising.

Why not just list the female popes? :D

...paging Pope Joan!

[Joykins]

This is an interesting book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0312293062/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

It is about fundamentalist forms of religion. No religion emerges as exempt from the charge of suppressing women.

Of course, once you move away from fundamentalism, all sorts of positions become possible.

I guess this is sort of what I think. What sparked this thread was reading this blog:

http://2spb.blogspot.com/

excerpt from the post that was making me think:

For a while, I tried to figure how much of my Christian beliefs I could salvage ~ what of the Bible message could I still claim as valid and acceptable? ~ was there a “core truth” that I could hold onto despite my rejection of the strict, literalistic interpretation which included such narrowly defined family roles? ~ but despite my almost frantic searching, I came up empty. None of it makes sense to me anymore ~ and the things which used to be beautiful and inspiring to me now seem hideous ~ petty, warped, and sick.

Anyone who’s read my previous writings knows where I have been, what I’ve believed, practiced and taught. Here’s how I see it now:

The Bible is an ancient text written in a time and culture radically different from our own. It was written by men who were privileged enough to know how to read and write ~ and it establishes a self-serving, male-dominated religion which uses the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell to keep the disenfranchised content in their servitude. (OMG ~ I sound just like Karl Marx.)

It seems crazy that thousands of years later, we should be trying to emulate the family structure and gender roles of an ancient society which viewed women and children as property. Truthfully, I’m kind of pissed that I so willingly co-operated in my own oppression for so many years ~ I allowed myself and my children to be used to fulfill an egotistical fantasy of a man who desired to be king of his castle.

Patriarchy is a pretty sweet deal ~ for the man who gets a Proverbs 31 wife and a quiverfull of children like olive branches around his table. In that family set-up, Daddy reigns supreme. I know, I know ~ the teaching is that it’s actually the Lord Jesus whom the wife and children serve when they submit to and obey the father. And when I think about it ~ that’s so twisted! How convenient for the man that all this is clearly spelled out in the Word of God.

I realize that I sound like an angry feminist bitch ~ and I think to myself, “If only I could convince them that I tried my best ~ I did everything right!” Could it be that the failure is with the system, not with the burned-out and worn down women who are struggling to make it work?

The truth is, not all men are cut out for leadership in the home or church. And for those with controlling, punitive, and demanding tendencies, the practice of patriarchy in the home will only exacerbate their insatiable egos and lend an air of spiritual credence to their tyranny and abuse in the name of "protection" and spiritual covering.

I think she has a good point plus I don't think she should be down on herself for being an "angry feminist bitch" because I don't think feminism--or anger at being in such a system for so long-- is anything to be ashamed of.

[Ray Moscow]

Religion and feminism
Are they compatible?

If you mean "goddess" sort of religions, sure.

If you mean patriarchal ones, I don't think so, other than the trivial sense that some feminists still cling to partiarchal religions. (Humans are not always very consistent.)

Still, some feminists and other progressives re-invent versions of the old oppressive religions to suit themselves. For example,

Julie Burchill moves closer to Judaism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/julie-burchill-judaism-brighton-synagogue)

I think this is so full of confused doublethink that it makes me a little ill to contemplate, but then they didn't ask me for an opinion, did they?

[Joykins]

But if you (as an atheist) hold that religion is just an invention, what is the problem with reinventing it into more of a positive force in society?

[Ray Moscow]

But if you (as an atheist) hold that religion is just an invention, what is the problem with reinventing it into more of a positive force in society?

The doublethink comes from ignoring what much of what the foundational texts or doctrines say about gays (kill 'em!), women (own 'em!), or people from other religions (kill em!), or disobiedient kids for that matter (kill them, too!) while maintaining that these texts and doctrines are still valid and valuable sources of wisdom.

To me, a God tradition that maintained (and still does, in many versions) that gays and pagans ought to be killed is not a valid source of wisdom, no matter how many times the turd is polished.

Why not just start over from scratch? Or use non-oppressive mythologies, if you can find some?

[David B]

But if you (as an atheist) hold that religion is just an invention, what is the problem with reinventing it into more of a positive force in society?

Do we want a society driven by false supernatural beliefs?

What is wrong with not reinventing it, and having trying to engender positive forces in society that are rationally based rather than woo based?

David

[DMB]

I don't think one can exempt religions with goddesses (typically polytheistic). Hinduism has goddesses but women still tend to be downtrodden. Ancient Greece had lots of powerful goddesses, but the status of women was very low.

[Christina]

I'm sure that Jess knows much more about this but I think that most of the modern wiccan religions came out of the feminist and earthy-type movements of the sixties and seventies and aren't all that connected to the older and more traditional forms.

[Ray Moscow]

I'm sure that Jess knows much more about this but I think that most of the modern wiccan religions came out of the feminist and earthy-type movements of the sixties and seventies and aren't all that connected to the older and more traditional forms.

It depends who you talk to. Lots of people believe (for whatever reasons) that they have a pretty strong connection to "the old religion". IMO, they don't have an historic line to ancient practices, or rather the evidence for such lines is really, really thin.

Others freely admit that all religions are "made up" in the sense of being human inventions. If that's the case, why not "make up" something good and positive to start with? As long as everyone involved realises that they are working with human imagination, it seems pretty harmless to me.

[The above message has been channeled for your Enlightenment.]

[Joykins]

But if you (as an atheist) hold that religion is just an invention, what is the problem with reinventing it into more of a positive force in society?

Do we want a society driven by false supernatural beliefs?

What is wrong with not reinventing it, and having trying to engender positive forces in society that are rationally based rather than woo based?


Myth and legends are motivating in a way that rational stuff just isn't for a lot of people. Even stuff I would agree is "woo" is--all you have to do is look at the profits for homeopathy and the fact that horoscopes are published to know that.

I think the fancy word for constructing this sort of imaginative religion is mythopoeisis.

[David B]

But if you (as an atheist) hold that religion is just an invention, what is the problem with reinventing it into more of a positive force in society?

Do we want a society driven by false supernatural beliefs?

What is wrong with not reinventing it, and having trying to engender positive forces in society that are rationally based rather than woo based?


Woo is motivating in a way that rational stuff just isn't for a lot of people. All you have to do is look at the profits for homeopathy to know that.

Indeed - and it is looking at the profits from homeopathy, among other things, that motivates me to stand up against woo.

David

[Ray Moscow]

Speaking of woo: I read The Telegraph yesterday on the flight over (it was either that or The Mail).

And it was seemingly full of stories of the wonders of homeopathy, like this one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/5576901/Annabel-Croft-Why-I-have-come-to-rely-on-homeopathic-medicine.html).

Although The Telegraph is often full of crap, I thought that they had pretty good science writers. What's the deal? Did I just catch them on an unusally crappy day?

[David B]

Speaking of woo: I read The Telegraph yesterday on the flight over (it was either that or The Mail).

And it was seemingly full of stories of the wonders of homeopathy, like this one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/5576901/Annabel-Croft-Why-I-have-come-to-rely-on-homeopathic-medicine.html).

Although The Telegraph is often full of crap, I thought that they had pretty good science writers. What's the deal? Did I just catch them on an unusally crappy day?

It was in their 'Lifestyle' section. I remember a couple of years ago, when I used to buy The Times regularly, they had a Lifestyle section that was also woo filled.

My letters to them didn't have any impact, I'm afraid.

David

[Christina]

Others freely admit that all religions are "made up" in the sense of being human inventions. If that's the case, why not "make up" something good and positive to start with? As long as everyone involved realises that they are working with human imagination, it seems pretty harmless to me.

I find wicca to be the most harmless religion that I'm aware of. From the little I've seen I think at worst it can be silly. The groups that I know don't preach to anyone, don't have any rules that people are supposed to rigidly live by other than do no harm and they don't condemn anyone else for their beliefs. Some of the women I know think that their spells really work due to some external force but most see it as a way of focusing their intent. The men involved are pretty much the same, I think.

[Joykins]

I don't see a real parallel between mythopoesis and woo.