Women in World Religions

TalkHappy Heathens

Join LibraryThing to post.

Women in World Religions

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1VenusofUrbino
Dec 12, 2007, 8:57 am

After reading the article about the Muslim-Canadian girl that was strangled by her father...I got to thinking.

In SO many religions, women have second class status or WORSE. Women are unclean, evil, distrusted etc. They must serve men and obey them. Their only function is to procreate.

These ideas were conjured up thousands and thousands of years ago, yet they still persist today.

Can we blame this all on the story of Eve? Is that really how we got here? Or is there something more that I am missing? I really want to know. And how do we get it to change?

2Arctic-Stranger
Dec 12, 2007, 1:42 pm

One of the things that really pisses me off about Christianity (and I say that as a practitioner) is that they had the opportunity to redress of the wrongs pressed on women over the years, and only made a half-hearted effort at it, then jumped into the deep end of patriarchy.

Jesus has several touching encounters with women, that broke the mold for social interaction between genders in his day. (See John 4 and 8).

Paul would write that in Christ there is no male or female, and in Corinthians, when talking about marriage, holds that a wife's body belongs to her husband and a husband's body belongs to his wife. Pretty radical for those days.

You also find things in Paul about women not speaking in public. There is some historical debate on that. Possibly he was reverting to his old patriarchial ways. But the places where he writes this were to churches in cities known for temple prostitution. (Christianity essentially put temple prostitution out of the big bucks. Before Christianity, being a prostitute was the only way women in some communities could practice their spirituality. Joining the clergy for them meant becoming a prostitute. Christianity accepted women, including and possibly especially temple prostitutes-- hence the erroneous tradition that Mary was a prostitute.)

it is possible that Paul is trying to deal with the dynamic of an influx of paganism, and was trying to quiet, not women as a whole, but former pagan priestesses. But maybe not. (Also one of the texts, from Timothy, is disputed as an authentic Pauline text.)

Things are slowly changing for women in the church, and in fact there are denominations (mostly pentecostal) where women have equal roles as men.

3Essa
Dec 12, 2007, 1:51 pm

Can't recall where I read this, but at one point I recall reading one author's opinion -- regarding Paul's "silence-is-golden" text -- that the text actually was referring to interior design and noise. Most of the early Christians were Jews. The author figured that synagogues back then looked much the same as (Orthodox) synagogues do now, with men seated on one side or level and women seated in the other. If women were leaning over the mechitza and shouting out questions to their husbands on the other side, it would be disruptive to the proceedings.

Thus, said this author, Paul wasn't trying to suppress women, who, elsewhere in the NT are referred to as prophesying, speaking in tongues, praying and teaching. Rather, he was simply advising married women to avoid across-the-mechitza socializing and discuss things with their husbands at home.

It was an interesting hypothesis, at any rate, and made some sense to me (within the context of its time).

As for religious sexism in general, it's my opinion that human beings create religion. Since many societies were and are steeped in misogyny, racism and other ills, those characteristics get built into the religions and are believed to be holy, sacred, or the will of God(s). Humans creating God(s) in their own image, as the old saying goes.

4heinous-eli
Dec 12, 2007, 2:23 pm

Going back to the Canadian case...

There are two views on women in Islam. I'm creating a dichotomy for the sake of argument, by the way, not as a reflection of what people tend to hold as a personal view.

On one hand, there are people who view Islam as a liberating force for women. They point out that in pre-Islamic society, women were nothing but property. Islam grants inheritance rights to women as well as a limited power of divorce. It prohibits the killing of daughters and elevates the status of mothers. People on this side tend to view the veil as a force that frees women from being judged by their looks or "harassed" by men. Any oppression of women by Muslims is seen as either born of culture rather than religion or a misinterpretation of a situation by "Western" eyes. Yvonne Ridley, the former Taliban captive and convert to Islam, calls the Quran the "Magna Carta for women," and that sums up this side's view quite well.

On the other hand are people who point out that despite how Islam may have granted rights to women that were previously unrecognized by Arab society, Islam is now pretty backwards. The Quran allows for men to discipline their wives for disobedience by first admonishing them, then separating beds from them, and then beating them (though most commentators add "lightly" in parentheses after that word in Quranic translations). Veiling, as mandated by the Quran, is seen by this side as a physical manifestation of male oppression of women and the transfer of the burden of sexuality from men to women. The Hadith are much worse. Muhammad said that if prostrating before anyone but Allah were permissible, women ought to be made to bow down to their husbands. He also said that there are many more women then men in Hell because women gossip too much and are ungrateful to their husbands (one could go on and on with misogynistic hadith but I'll stop here). The Muslim marriage, in its most basic form, is a contract in which a wife agrees to be constantly sexually available for her husband and a husband pledges to provide for her financially (though most Muslims expand upon that basic formula by quite a bit). Men can marry up to four wives and have sex with an unregulated number of non-Muslim concubines, slaves, and captives of war, whilst women are to remain monogamous. In Heaven, men are provided with young virgins, male and female, whilst women rest on couches for all eternity unless their husband from the previous life decides he wants to add her to his harem (my religious teacher told me that by the time I died, as a woman, the novelty of sex would have worn off for me and I would appreciate the break).

Most Muslims function somewhere in between. The killing of the Canadian girl had more to do with Pakistani notions of tribal honor than any sort of mandate in Islam to kill errant daughters. He might be able to theologically justify himself with the Islamic mandate to kill apostates, since the girl's move from veiling to dressing in a more "Westernized" way could be interpreted as a move away from Islam.

5Arctic-Stranger
Dec 12, 2007, 2:23 pm

I have not heard that, but it makes sense to me. More sense than a blanket condemnation of women in ministry, given that Paul speaks glowingly of several of his cohorts who were women.

6dore
Dec 12, 2007, 2:33 pm

re 1

This is a complicated issue, not easily answered.
No, I don't think we can blame all of it on the story of Eve, but it's a shame that the Christian church in general ignores Genesis, Chapter 5, which corrects the whole guilty, sinning scenario.

More at the heart of the problem may be the difference between spiritual dominion and physical domination. Spiritual dominion is benevolent, peaceful, governing power; physical domination is establishing right by might, which is a totally different thing.

In the third century, the Roman Emperor decided that the Christian Church needed to have some issues decided and set about defining them.


Those with opposing views were executed, and documents stating opposing views were burned.

That’s a prime, but by no means the only, example of the principle, “Might makes right”.

In English law, at one time, a man could not beat his wife with a stick or cane larger than the diameter of his thumb.

Men generally are physically stronger than women; therefore, they think they have the right to enforce their views on women and children.

In addition to this, male strength is often objectified by the size and use of the penis.


The more women the male can impregnate, the more male he is. If he can keep his woman “barefoot and pregnant”, then he is a mighty male because his woman, in theory at least, is vulnerable, obedient, and submissive.

In addition, men often make women morally responsible for the behavior of men. The outcome of this is that men do as they please, and women do what they are told.

“If the woman wasn’t asking for it, she wouldn’t have been raped.”

During the medieval ages in Nice, there was a vote over whether women have souls. Without souls, of course, women are reduced to animals, burdens of labor, and totally excluded from the church and spirituality.

Sanity prevailed by one vote, and women kept the status of having souls, or the image and breath of Divine Likeness.

I would like to say this issue was settled by this vote at Nice, but misogyny is not limited by time, space, religion, or culture.

In May of 2000, the following announcement was made,

Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Fred Neiman, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week.

"The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God."

He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

Dr. Neiman went on to say that, "once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."


There is nothing quite so appalling as a self-righteous, self-justifying, self-congratulating Adam, pointing the finger, and blaming others for weakness, deceit, and self-indulgence.

When misogyny and other forms of hatred are endorsed by religion, then the purpose of the Church is sabotaged.

The misguided proponents of such nonsense go about condemning others, rather than practicing more compassionate behavior.

7margad
Edited: Dec 12, 2007, 2:56 pm

It all just goes to show that religions are created by human beings. In another thread, someone asked about the distinction between "religion" and "spirituality." This seems like a good illustration of the difference. Spirituality is how we experience the genuinely divine, something impossible to express in terms defined by earthly language and experience. Some forms of religion are profoundly unspiritual!

8bluesalamanders
Dec 12, 2007, 2:57 pm

6 dore

That is one of the most appalling and disgusting things I've ever read. Wow.

9Essa
Dec 12, 2007, 3:04 pm

Um... the Landover Baptist is a satirical Web site. Like The Onion. It's not for real. :)

10margad
Dec 12, 2007, 3:20 pm

Oops!

11dore
Dec 12, 2007, 3:23 pm

re 9

Thanks, I did wonder about that given their general attitude and advertising, but how do you confirm that it is fake and deceitful?

12Essa
Dec 12, 2007, 3:31 pm

Well ... when I was first introduced to it, years ago, I was told, or "knew," it was satire, but that was long enough that I no longer can remember how I knew that.

Wikipedia has an entry on Landover, if you're inclined to trust that. The entry also contains various references and external links that you can check out.

Chris Harper, Landover's creator, has a book called Welcome to Jesusland!

And here is a Museum of Hoaxes discussion on Landover.

13lilithcat
Dec 12, 2007, 3:31 pm

> 11

Because it says so in their Terms of Service. I quote: "The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody."

14VenusofUrbino
Dec 12, 2007, 3:39 pm

Chris Harper spoke at the Godless Americans March back in 2002. He was great!

15weener
Dec 12, 2007, 3:51 pm

In English law, at one time, a man could not beat his wife with a stick or cane larger than the diameter of his thumb.
This is actually a myth too. There's a chapter adressing it in the book Who Stole Feminism?. It's completely made up with no basis whatsoever in fact.

In most societies, I guess there's never been a limit on how wide a pole it's OK for a man to use to beat his wife. :)

16Arctic-Stranger
Dec 12, 2007, 3:53 pm

Sigh. Of relief.

Just don't let the fundies get ahold of this though. It might give them ideas.

As to "religion" vs "spirituality," often spirituality HAS to take on some kind of form. Otherwise it is just a vague sense of .... something. The forms are not always bad. (I am currently writing about my early experiences using the Book of Common Worship as a devotional guide, and how helpful that was for me.)

But sometimes they are bad...and sometimes they are downright unspiritual, as you said. But we are corporal beings, and to embody spirituality is not a sin. (Unlike ancient Gnostic thought.)

17citygirl
Dec 12, 2007, 5:25 pm

The way women are viewed in Christianity and Islam is one of the main reasons why I was never comfortable with the Christianity I was raised in and why I never considered becoming a Muslim like my father.

Even the most enlightened sects of these religions are still sexist, in my view. The explanations for the more patently misogynistic scripture verses were never satisfactory.

When I asked my father (dear, dear man, who is quite enlightened as an individual), as a child, why the women had to sit behind the men in the mosque, he told me it was because men get distracted looking at women. I don't even think to this day he realizes how sexist that is. The supposed reason women cover up is, as heina said, so they don't get harassed. This one never made any sense at all. I think it's because men don't want other men ogling their property. I've been meaning to ask my father about Islam's saddling women with the responsibility for men's libidos and I think I will probably have to now.

And the Christians? Why should there even be a debate as to whether women can serve as clergy? If it's even a question, it's not a community I need to join. What about all that Eve and apple bs? I have actually had people tell me that Adam would never have sinned if Eve hadn't convinced him to. It's her fault. Women are wicked (and curious). I've also been told that's why women have menstrual cramps and pain during childbirth. Who believes this stuff?

Why is it so important that Jesus' mother was a virgin? Why is that so special? Does it make Jesus more special? Of course, I realize now that it's simply not possible that Jesus' mother was a virgin, so why the mythology? Arctic, maybe you can answer that one.

Sorry for ranting. This subject brings out the hysterical woman in me. :-p

18Arctic-Stranger
Edited: Dec 12, 2007, 6:22 pm

Nothing hysterical there in my book.

Ahhh the virgin birth....Well, since it is almost Christmas...

First, it is not necessary. Neither Mark nor John mention it in their Gospels, and Paul does not mention it either.

My guess is that these stories emerged in the telling of the Jesus stories. (Similar stories appeared about the Buddha as well. I am not sure about Mohammed, although Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus the Prophet.) Luke ties the story to the story of Elizabeth (Mother of John the Baptist). Matthew lets the story stand on its own.

Miraculous births are part and parcel of the Hebrew Scriptures. Sarai and Hannah were not virgins, but were considered "barren" but were still able to give birth. (I am sure there are others, but those two come to mind.) So a story about the birth of Jesus being extraordinary is ...well not out of the ordinary. But the intent in these texts are to one up the previous stories. Matthew portrays Jesus as the New Moses. (In fact there are many similarities between the birth of Moses and the birth of Jesus.) But he is BETTER than Moses, so we get a virgin birth. Luke portrays Jesus as the New David. Both harken back to Isaac and Samuel in the telling of the virgin birth story. Oh, and Matthew uses a lot of quotes from the Hebrew prophets, including the one about the young girl (in Hebrew) or virgin (in the Septuigent, the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). Matthew would be writing to people who used the Septuigent, not the Hebrew Scriptures.

Later, the language is inserted into the Creeds, not to emphasis the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth, but his Humanity. Today we tend to read it, "born of the VIRGIN Mary." In the first Millenium it would have been read "BORN of the virgin Mary." That Mary would be a virgin would be a given. That Jesus would be BORN...with all the bloody, sweaty mess that goes with childbirth...that was was what the early Christians found fantastic. Luke takes the story, but then emphasizes the more humble parts of the birth--born in a stable, accompanied by peasants. In essence he undercuts the telling of the story, which is very Lukan. (This child will be born, as Mary is told, and will be a part of God's plan, which is:

he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.

Another Lukan theme.

The above verses might make a good meditation for the holiday season. It was banned in some central and South American countries for a time. It comes from the Magnificat, found in Luke 1.

19Atomicmutant
Dec 12, 2007, 6:23 pm

I'm glad someone pointed out the Landover Baptist stuff. They are so subtle sometimes. And they have multiple sites, so you never know exactly when you're going to run into their stuff. What's incredible about what they do, is that it's so close to real as to be believable. Very, very clever.

#17, funny you should ask about the Virgin Mary, I am now reading Why Christianity Must Change or Die by John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopalian Bishop. Just last night I read this passage, so I'll share it with you, here.

""He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary." Certainly if that phrase is to be understood literally, it violates everything we know about biology. Do we not yet recognize that all virgin birth tales--and there have been many in human history--are legendary? They are human attempts to suggest that humanity alone did not have the ability to produce a life like the one being described. All virgin birth stories, including the ones about Jesus, were fully discredited as biological truths by the discovery in 1734 of the existence of an egg cell. That discovery meant that the woman could no longer be regarded simply as the passive receptacle for the seed of the male, which is the implication of these narratives. Divinity thus could no longer be said to enter her offspring as a divine gift without being compromised by her own humanity. The woman from that moment on had to be recognized as a cocreator, an equal genetic participant in the procreation of every life. The primary assumption in the biblical story of the virgin birth--namely, that Jesus' divine nature came to him directly from God through his mother's impregnation by the Holy Spirit--is a hopelessly sexist idea born in a totally patriarchal world that denied the woman's contribution to every new life."

It's a good book!

20citygirl
Dec 12, 2007, 6:43 pm

Thank you, Arctic and Atomic. Fascinating. I'm going to go try and digest it now. Wow, that Mary would be a virgin is a given....

*wanders off not looking where she's going*

21Choreocrat
Dec 12, 2007, 7:17 pm

As I understood it, the reason Mary was supposed to be a virgin is that she was special in herself and more or less 'without sin' (she hadn't fornicated). If she was sinful, then Jesus would have been born with the sin of Adam and Eve (original sin). For Jesus not to have original sin, he couldn't be born out of fornication (even within a married situation).
Of course, if (like me) original sin isn't an issue (our 'evilness' comes simple from humanity's inability to be perfect), then it doesn't matter at all whether Mary was a virgin or not.

Interesting to hear your Lukan explanation, A-S.

Mysogynistic ideas appear in most places (matriarchal societies and religions are considerably sparse, although they do exist, and actually make a decent amount of sense), and like someone further up said, it's simply worked its way into the religions, whether they were mysogynistic to start with or not. I had a considerably egalitarian upbringing, and had many feminist friends at school, so the thought of being mysogynistic is completely foreign to me. Plus, I've got to stop reading Octavia R. Butler novels. They just make me angry, even if she writes so well. (danged touchstones)

22Arctic-Stranger
Dec 12, 2007, 7:23 pm

That is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus!) and was formulated from seeds planted by Augustine in the 5th Century. For Mary to be without sin, her PARENTS had to conceive her without sin. So, in the whole history of the human race, only two people have ever had sex, and hardly noticed they were doing it; no lust, no impure thoughts, no selfish desire, no pleasure...that was Mary's parents, who managed to have sin without sinning, thus making it possible for Mary to be born without the taint of original sin.

To my mind that is a bit overboard.

23RowanTribe
Dec 12, 2007, 7:31 pm

RE : 22
... now, several of my catholic friends passed that story on to me as Mary's MOTHER being a VIRGIN as well - Mary's dad didn't have anything to do with it. That was just the way I was told tho, and they might have been exaggerating for the heathen...

24Essa
Edited: Dec 12, 2007, 7:35 pm

To my mind that is a bit overboard.

Quite. Actually, what's overboard, to my way of thinking, is the idea that sexuality is somehow bad, bad, evil and wicked. And yet, a number of religions seem to spend a whole lot of time fretting over, and regulating, sexual activity, and female sexuality in particular. And if you observe fundamentalism, you quickly notice that, regardless of what religion it is, one big common denominator is the denigration of women (and sex).

Why are women, and sex, and women's sexuality, so frightening? It puzzles me.

Edited to fix stuff.

25citygirl
Edited: Dec 12, 2007, 7:39 pm

Why are women, and sex, and women's sexuality, so frightening?

This is a question I have asked myself over and over and over again. This is how we are and yet these religions don't seem to think we can handle ourselves without all their nasty rules.

ETA: yes, I know a religion cannot have thoughts. Bear with me. This pushes my buttons.

26littlegeek
Dec 12, 2007, 7:55 pm

I think it's fairly obvious why sex is frightening. You can get pregnant or a disease from it.

Poor Mary, she didn't even indulge! (IT"S A JOKE!!! Don't hurt me.)

Sometimes, I do wonder if they're trying to say that Joseph was gay, but that's another story.

27Arctic-Stranger
Dec 12, 2007, 8:04 pm

Mostly likely Joseph was pretty old. He disappears quite early in the story. But Jesus did have other brothers and sisters.

i am working on a response to post 24 and 25, but not sure it is worth reading.

28Essa
Dec 12, 2007, 8:38 pm

Interestingly, the Protevangelion of James -- which used to be at least semi-canonical, at least for some early Christians, as I recall -- does in fact say that Joseph was older, widowed, and the father of several children, before he married Mary.

I'd be interested in reading the response, if/when you (Arctic-Stranger) are able to post it.

29ryner
Dec 12, 2007, 10:41 pm

Times change, but some things stay the same. It has always seemed obvious to me that, Mary simply got knocked up, presumably by one other than Joseph. Rather than suffer humiliation or scorn (or worse) for having been unfaithful, she made up a pretty fantastic cover story. And people believed it, I guess.

I'm surprised no one ever tries that story today. After all, it worked once! :)

30citygirl
Dec 12, 2007, 10:50 pm

Arctic, I've never found any post of yours not worth reading. Over my head at times, but never a waste of time. Please tell us what you're thinking.

31citygirl
Dec 12, 2007, 10:52 pm

And ryner, I also thought that Mary got knocked up, but I got the impression, somehow, that it wasn't Mary who made up the story. Maybe the village elders? Maybe one of them was the daddy?

What was Mary's story?

32Choreocrat
Dec 13, 2007, 1:10 am

If it's not the case, then I suspect the most likely explanation is that it was a normal birth with Joseph as Daddy (inside wedlock, outside, or close call), and the story grew up later (especially with various prophecies that are aided by the gospel versions). Most heroes' stories include a miraculous birth of some sort, or a childhood tale of heroism. In addition to the canonical stories, there are some interesting ones in the pseudo-gospels and gnostic gospels, including lighting bolts and resuscitating childhood friends, if I remember my Historical Jesus course.

33darrow
Dec 13, 2007, 5:33 am

I've been scanning some of these posts and may have missed it, but no one has mentioned the most obvious explanation of all for the biblical "virgin" myth. As Dawkin's states in The God Delusion, it was a miss-translation of "young women".

34margd
Dec 13, 2007, 6:02 am

> 33 et al., wasn't marriage a two-step process in that time and place: betrothal, through which the woman was referred to as a virgin, followed by marriage and physical union. Some couples got ahead of themselves, and thus a virgin would conceive. Anyway, didn't Joseph have to be the father if Jesus was of the house of David, per scripture? Piety and intercultural misunderstandings over decades and centuries then gave us the doctrine of the Virgin Birth?

35RowanTribe
Dec 13, 2007, 9:13 am

RE : 34

As for the House of David thing, in a strange twist regarding the overall subject of this thread, Judaism is a MATRILINEAL line. Lineage is passed solely through the mother. Which makes sense, as the mother is really the only parent you can be relatively SURE of in those times. And since they were so uptight about not marrying non-Jews, it was kindof important.

So, regardless of Jesus' father, he was of the house of David, because Mary was. On an off note, because these things were usually kept within tribes, Joseph was ALSO of the house of David... poor guy. I always felt sorry for the Catholic version of him. Not only does his fiancee get knocked up "by the Holy Spirit," but then he's not allowed to touch her himself. Ever. No wonder he dies early. He's lost his manhood to God. What's a guy to do?

36reading_fox
Dec 13, 2007, 9:33 am

#24,5 - interesting that's one of Pullman's key points in His Dark Materials.

This is a very mild spoiler and really obvious anyway.

Lyra and Will get together in the woods and come out full of Dust, which is good, rather than sinful as Mrs Coulter would have believed.

37dore
Dec 13, 2007, 11:37 am

re 17
I hear nothing hysterical, just some confusion.

I don't know if you want me to rant again, but the Virgin Birth discussion has brought forth all sorts of questions.

I can only offer what I think, and hope it has some relevant points for you.

For a lot of people, biology--sex in particular--is god, although, perhaps, a somewhat dubious one.

In fact, Freud said sex was the creative life force. This has the effect of making sex good, positive, and creative--no reason to delay immediate and frequent gratification.

As Arctic points out, lots of Christians discount the Virgin Birth; some apply Immaculate Conception to Mary as well as to Jesus.

If Jesus had a Virgin Birth and was celibate, is sex a sin?

Are children “conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity”?

Christ Jesus said,
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matt 23:9)

If God is Cause and Creator, then why a Virgin Birth?

To demonstrate that God is not dependent on biological processes; that sex between men and women is a blessing from God (“What God hath joined together, no man can put asunder”) and is holy, sacred, joyful, ecstatic, a reflection of the Divine Creative Life Force.

That’s why, spiritually, the relationship is Holy Matrimony.

Children, therefore, are a gift from God, not a production of selfish genes.

We should be able to say, spiritually, of each of our offspring,

“And the child grew in wisdom and stature, in favor with God and man.”

38philosojerk
Dec 13, 2007, 11:42 am

Re #24

Why are women, and sex, and women's sexuality, so frightening? It puzzles me.

Because when it comes to sexuality, women are the ones with all the power. Men are the ones who are controlled by their sexual organs, while women are capable of walking away from it if their needs aren't met. Which puts us women in a position of serious control. Men don't like that, so they condemn our sexuality.

/end power trip

39citygirl
Dec 13, 2007, 12:02 pm

dore, thank you for your perspective, and while I admit confusion in these murky areas, I don't think I'm confused about Christianity and women. I don't buy the explanation. I've noticed that Christians have to jump through quite a few philosophical hoops, such as the ones you've offered, to mask what is clearly a problem with women and sex. (I'm not implying that you yourself have such a problem. I don't know and I'm not speculating.) Why is all that necessary? I agree that sex and spirituality are linked, and that link, for heteros, necessarily includes women. I suspect this is where the problem comes in. Women too close to god?

ph.j., I agree to some degree with what you've written, but I think it goes even deeper. Where, I'm not sure.

40Arctic-Stranger
Dec 13, 2007, 1:15 pm

I refered to the Hebrew 'ama (young girl) in post 18, and compared it to the Septuigent, where the word IS virgin. Dawkins has not done his homework. Most First Century Jews and Christians would have used the Septuigent (Greek translation) rather than the Hebrew scriptures themselves.

(More Jews lived in the city of Rome in the first century than in all of Palestine.) And the Septuigent pre-dated the New Testament, so they didnt use the word there to set up the Virgin birth. Also, the Hebrew word is closer to the English word "maid" which does not mean, but implies a virgin.

More problematic is the fact that the Isaiah text refers to a young woman who is standing in the room with Isaiah as he makes the prophecy, and in fact she does have a child (She might even be his wife) and the promise Isaiah makes concerning this child is kept within 13 years of the birth of the child.

But that is not the way the early commentators used the Scriptures. They had a much more fluid understanding of Text and Meaning than we do today. Dare I say they were almost Post-Modernist in their usage of the Old Testament to reinterpret the life of Jesus?

As to sexuality: Dare I wade into this? Sigh. Yes I dare.

For most men, sexuality is a serious issue. (Caveat: I am not speaking for women, or for any one individual. As I am not a woman, I don't have a lot to say about women's sexuality, except for my limited experience, and my wide reading. Female issues may be similar or different. And there are always exceptions to everything. And people who are exceptions to everything.)

Male sexuality can be quite self-centered. I don't know I would call that evil, but let's just say that in many cases it can get in the way of a good relationship. We like to think of ourselves as independent, and able to care for ourselves and our families. For example, pornography is an major concern for males (it is a huge industry in this country) but not as much an issue for females. (I am sure there are males who do not like porn and females who do, but the generality stands.)

Now my one of my theological mentors was a student of Foucault (actually a student of a student of Foucault) and taught me how to see power dynamics and how they played out in history, esp the history of the church.

Now I am about to say things that I am not sure I can say well, so before you go all ballistic on me, try hard to see what I might be trying to get at behind the words.

For men, women represent a loss of power. To fall in love is to give your heart away. If you give your heart away, you can be hurt...very badly. (There was a recent play where one character tells her daughter, "Don't be the one in the relationship who loves the most. That person gets hurt. You need to be the one who is loved the most. You wont get hurt then."

Throw in the sexual drive, and boom...you have a very threatened man. How does that song go? "When a man loves a woman..." (See song lyrics at the end of Post)

Then throw in the historical feeling of men that one of the worst things you can be called is "sissy" or "pussy" or some other term to denote that you were a feminine type man. (In ancient Rome homosexuality was rampant...well SODAMY was rampant, homosexuality did not exist... and it was considered fine to be the one screwing other men, but you did not want to be the one who was screwed by other men.) Sexuality is a fluid thing, and most women have some masculine characteristics, and most men have some feminine characteristics. Men are much less comfortable with their feminine side than women are with their masculine side. (These are tendencies, not iron clad rules.) So when the feminine appears in a man, he feels threatened, from within, but he can easily focus the threat outward to other women.

Now throw in religion. Let's take Augustine, one of the main culprits in the Christian wrong turn on sexuality. Augustine was a man obsessed with sex. He was the one who prayed, "Lord make me chaste, but not today." It was his attraction to his mistress that kept him from fully converting to Christianity. When he did convert he renounced her and his child he had with her.

Now as I was writing that last paragraph, I ALMOST wrote, "It was his mistress who kept him from fully converting." Notice how I almost put the blame on her. It was rather instinctual, and I had reframe my own thoughts. That "innocent" little slip is a habit for many men who want to devote their lives to God. The major impediment most will encounter will be their relationship with women. And since we are masters at self-delusion and self-justification, it is rather easy to see how the problem shifts from "I have a problem dealing with my desires about women" to "Women are a problem to me." When that move is made, men must be protect from women.

(And remember that sexual roles were pretty segregated at one time. A lot of what women did was a HUGE mystery to men. And we did not know as much about anatomy either, so even the way women were structured was a mystery. Where DOES that baby come from? What is the deal with all that blood?)

So eventually, to "protect" men from the effects of women, they eventually put them into one of two boxes; virgin saint, or whore. They are either helping us toward our goal of sainthood (usually by making an incredible sacrifice of their own sexuality, violently and graphically) or they are seducing us with their sexuality and are poison apples.

Then throw in the strength differential, which meant historically that women were kept in the home while men roamed or worked for food, and you have a recipe for disaster.

PERSONALLY I think:

Men and women should learn to enjoy their sexuality.

Men and women are essentially different in some ways, and those differences should be celebrated.

If there were a way to include sexuality in religious celebration without oppressing someone, which is highly unlikely on an organized scale, it should be a part of religious actions. But historically when this happened what we saw was a form of organized prostitution where women were abused by temple priests.

For a man to believe that a woman is dangerous as a woman, and needs to be subdued, is pure fantasy on his part.

Well I could go on, but I think I rambled enough.

As promised:

When a man loves a woman
Can't keep his mind on nothing else
He'll trade the world
For the good thing he's found
If she's bad he can't see it
She can do no wrong
Turn his back on his best friend
If he put her down

When a man loves a woman
Spend his very last dime
Tryin' to hold on to what he needs
He'd give up all his comfort
Sleep out in the rain
If she said that's the way it ought to be

Well, this man loves a woman
I gave you everything I had
Tryin' to hold on to your precious love
Baby, please don't treat me bad

When a man loves a woman
Down deep in his soul
She can bring him such misery
If she plays him for a fool
He's the last one to know
Lovin' eyes can't ever see

When a man loves a woman
He can do no wrong
He can never own some other girl
Yes when a man loves a woman
I know exactly how he feels
'Cause baby, baby, baby, you're my world

41Essa
Edited: Dec 13, 2007, 1:39 pm

Very interesting, Arctic-Stranger! Thank you for sharing your insights.

You mentioned Augustine and his influence (at least on the Western churches)... I wonder if his being a Manichaen, prior to converting to Christianity, had a strong influence on his ways of thinking and thus, "bled over" into the Church. Manichaeism was strongly dualistic with strict contrasts between darkness and light and a hostility towards the physical body and sexuality. I can't help but think that Augustine was profoundly influenced by such viewpoints, and continued to struggle with, and be influenced by them, after converting to Christianity.

Judaism seems to have a slightly more balanced view of these things -- e.g., it doesn't mortify the flesh and it encourages marriage, sex (within marriage), and children. Perhaps the anti-body, anti-sex, woman-as-tempter idea stems more from Augustine's Manichaen background, then from original Jewish/Christian teachings?

Just a thought.

Edit to add: I do think that "to fall in love is to give your heart away" is entirely true -- for everyone, both men and women, and of any orientation. Or at least, that has been my experience (sometimes, unhappily so).

42dore
Dec 13, 2007, 1:47 pm

re 40

Arctic, that was a courageous discussion!

Sexuality is often a rampant field of fears.

How are we to handle fear?

43RowanTribe
Dec 13, 2007, 1:51 pm

RE : 41

I dunno, that whole Rabbinical "sheet with a strategically-placed hole in it" between the highly orthodox Jew and his wife seems to rule out a bit of the Manichean only idea. The concept was pretty clear : procreate = make more of MY (God's) people, but you're not allowed to enjoy yourself doing it, because then it would be a sin.

Although, on the other hand, the Old Testament Talmudic interpreters didn't make much of the 'Eve sinned' interpretation of Genesis (it was there, but not too emphasized. More of a "sigh - women. So weak." sort of feeling).

BUT the Christians jumped all over that idea in their quest to make the Bible VERY clear on the "Original Sin" and "Fall of Man" ideas, (necessary to explain the death/sacrifice of Jesus, which was necessary for the whole CHRISTian worldview) but those ideas really, if looked at textually and sociologically, weren't in the original meanings at all.

If you can stomach the long and very in depth treatment of the Jewish Old Testament, then How to Read the Bible by James L. Kugel (the book won't touchstone) is VERY good, and relates to this thread in his treatment of some of the OT stories about notable Bible women and WHY they were presented (and interpreted) in the way they were.

44Busifer
Edited: Dec 13, 2007, 3:15 pm

I really have avoided this debate (I think it got narrow and egotistic real early on) but I have to send multiple kudos to Arctic for #40 and the thoughts on sexuality.

As today is a really important event in Sweden - Sta Lucia day - I send a traditional and very seasonal lussekatt (Lucia's kitten) over your way.
Please have one.They are delicious, and, to me, one of the mitigating factors of this time of year.



Anyone familiar with the legend of Sta Lucia should understand the... ambiguousness of the shape of the bun ;-)

45Arctic-Stranger
Dec 13, 2007, 3:21 pm

Busifer, you might want to point out that they are to resemble eyes, not other parts of the anatomy.

46Essa
Dec 13, 2007, 3:36 pm

> 44 I'm not sure why the discussion seems "narrow and egotistical"? :-/ To me, re-reading the thread, it does seem like a discussion, rather than a debate; and people seem pretty respectful. I haven't seen any name-calling or trolling or whatnot.

For my part, I have not intended any offense towards anyone, including men, women, or people of faith (or of non-faith). And I don't think that all religious people everywhere are sexist, or that all religions are bastions of misogyny. But, sexism within many religions is troubling and confusing to me (and, apparently, to others here as well).

I accept the offer of a biscuit, and wish you a very pleasant St. Lucia's Day. :) I only know a little bit about St. Lucia and the holiday, so I don't know the reference about the shape. If I recall correctly, St. Lucia's Day is the one celebrated with the crown of candles. (?)

47Busifer
Dec 13, 2007, 3:37 pm

Well, yes. Please stand ready to avert the ashes ;-)

We have another way of telling the legend here - that those prosecuting here cut off her breasts as a way to steal her pride.
The event features the parading of a Lucia - a real girl - dressed in white with a red band about her waist, commemorating the bloodying of her righteousness.

As a side note this Lucia-event we have is actually a remnant from the time when we followed the julian calendar... December 13th was the winter solstice, back then. It has nothing at all to do with the actual saint.

But the buns are DELICIOUS, and I really liked your post!

48Busifer
Edited: Dec 13, 2007, 3:53 pm

Essa. I didn't mean there was trolls, or name-calling. But I started to read with real interest, making myself ready to enter the discussion.

I think the role of religion is interesting, especially so during what euphemistically is called the dark ages and forward, and the way women has been viewed during that time is also interesting.

But instead of a mind-widening discourse on women and religion this has almost been a hermeneutic experience.
Much talk about Paul and John, some bout temple whores; not much about witches, or the other, or the need for an enemy within and women's role in that.

Hermeneutics is not my cup of tea; hence I viewed the discussion (sorry, in my vocabulary 'debate' is a positive word suggesting diverse input while 'discussion' is more of a striving for consensus) as self-centred as in centred on the main religions people here have some kind of issues with and thus more a tool to come to grips with ones own upbringing than anything else.
And that's OK.

49citygirl
Dec 13, 2007, 3:59 pm

Arctic, I found your post very interesting and enlightening. You've offered a perspective I hadn't really considered before. Thanks. :-)

50Essa
Dec 13, 2007, 4:10 pm

Busifer - fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. :)

I certainly hope you will enter the discussion and contribute your thoughts and ideas, whether broad, narrow or in between. For example, I am curious to hear more about "the enemy within and women's role in that."

I will try to reign in my enthusiasm for comparative religions and old, dead texts -- it's easy for me to get distracted by those. Maybe the delicious lussekatt will help. ;) I wonder if I can find them around here, perhaps in an import shop.

51Busifer
Edited: Dec 13, 2007, 4:36 pm

As it's bedtime for me here in northern Europe I'll keep it short...

'The enemy within'; well, when a creed has won the top spot and is dominating a certain area it is at loss - there are no more external enemies to conquer etc. But to ratify (struggling at words here) itself it needs enemies; the search for the enemy within starts. The Inquisition is a prime example of this; the drive to purge fellow christians from the ranks.
Others have been subject to this; some says the vampire legends gained their place in our consciousnesses that way. I don't know.
But I think there is a coupling between Arctic's take on religion and sexuality and the witch hunts of an Europe not too far away and this quest for the enemy within.
And that's the gist of it.
Elaboration will have to come at some point when I'm not about to fall asleep over my laptop ;-)

ETA - I think you'd have to go to Minnesota or Indiana or such to find lusskatter in store/bakery. But they're real easy to do; it's basically a normal sweet dough with saffron added!

52Choreocrat
Dec 13, 2007, 8:08 pm

I'm pretty sure that Augustine tapped into some poeple's worst fears, including his own. When I was learning about early church history, I tried to read Confessions but felt a true aversion to it, even though I was somewhat at my height of Christian spirituality. I simply couldn't understand why he felt guilty at crying for his mother when he was a baby. Apparently it was greedy and selfish and sinful and he had to mortify himself in repentance. I haven't been able to take him in a good light since. Now, when I'm at more of a spiritual ebb, I find him repulsive.

I'm still recovering from reading a newspaper column this morning. My state is preparing to legislate same sex civil unions, and the column from the head of the Christian lobby made me quite irritated at his misrepresentation of a number of things. I'm on the "If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one" side of things, in case you hadn't noticed.

53VenusofUrbino
Dec 14, 2007, 9:35 am

Busifer, all I know about St. Lucia Day was learned from my favorite holiday movie, The Ref. Have you ever seen it?

"Mom, the TV's broken. What are we gonna do all night?"
"Celebrate the birth of Christ!"

Sorry--I had to stick on of my favorite quotes from the movie in there.

Arctic-Stranger, you got a big brain...you know that?

54RowanTribe
Dec 14, 2007, 9:59 am

RE - 52 WillSteed

"If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one"

AMEN!!

I think more problems can be solved by people minding their own d___ned business, and not legislating their own preferences.

55heinous-eli
Dec 14, 2007, 1:42 pm

#52 Reading that as well as The City of God and On the Trinity made me lost my faith, since his "logic" was so similar to the Islamic "logic" I'd grown up with.

56DaynaRT
Dec 14, 2007, 1:53 pm

I is not smart enuf 2 contribute but I jest want 2 sez that I loves this thread.

I think reading it has sparked some long dead neurons to fire up and do some actual work.

57Arctic-Stranger
Dec 14, 2007, 1:55 pm

Whoa! Logic Alert here.

Remember in my post where I almost said the Augustine's mistress kept him from becoming a Christian? And then said it would not be fair to blame her, because he was ultimately responsible for his actions, and it is thinking like that which led to the spiritual imprisonment of women?

To say that The confessions or The City of God made you lose your faith is no different. You cannot blame these books any more than Augustine can blame his mistress. For whatever reasons, these books provoked thoughts in you, which led to you chosing to renounce your faith.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do not "blame" others for decisions you have made. Clearly Augustine's relationship with his mistress was a factor in his life, and clearly reading these books are a factor in your lives, but it was you who decided things. The mistress or the books do not decide for us.

58Atomicmutant
Edited: Dec 14, 2007, 2:06 pm

The mistress or the books do not decide for us.

#57, you don't know my wife.

*ba dum bump* :D

!!DISCLAIMER!! I do not feel that way about my wife. She's great. The setup was just too good to resist. It's a joke! Really!

59heinous-eli
Dec 14, 2007, 3:06 pm

To say that The confessions or The City of God made you lose your faith is no different. You cannot blame these books any more than Augustine can blame his mistress. For whatever reasons, these books provoked thoughts in you, which led to you chosing to renounce your faith.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do not "blame" others for decisions you have made. Clearly Augustine's relationship with his mistress was a factor in his life, and clearly reading these books are a factor in your lives, but it was you who decided things. The mistress or the books do not decide for us.


To risk a bad pun here, chill out, Arctic; that's a bit dramatic of a response. It was a rather quickly-written post, admittedly. I guess better wording would have been "contributed to the thought process that led to my fall." Semantics matter when a theist is scrutinizing your post, I supposed.

60Arctic-Stranger
Dec 14, 2007, 3:22 pm

Well, not if the theist is a Christian and believes in grace!

I guess my point was to show how easy it is to fall into that kind of mode.

But I am chillin'. I am REALLY Chillin;.

If only it would get colder than 20 degrees here though. This warm weather is making me crazy. (Intentionally said that way.)

61Busifer
Dec 14, 2007, 5:30 pm

It is extremely easy to fall in the trap of blaming one's decisions on something or somebody else.
Because in the end, that is how our basic thought systems are set up, aren't they?
God is responsible for the good and the smiting; the devil for the temptations and sins and the r'n'r, all of it ;-)
We small humans with our weak minds, we are as nothing...
And the woman is the tool of the devil so she's to blame for everything.

Sorry, late night lash-out, couldn't help.
But I won't excuse it either.

62margad
Edited: Dec 18, 2007, 5:11 pm

I'm recuperating from the flu, so I may not be fully coherent, but I had to say something about the "women have more power than men" idea that floated up in this thread.

Women do not have more power than men, though it may seem that way to some men. In fact, in most societies through most of history, men have had way more power.

I went on a date with a guy once and at the end of the evening, I could see he was expecting and intending it to end in sex, despite my gentle efforts to steer things in a different direction. I finally said in frustration something to the effect of "Why can't you take into consideration whether I want to have sex, as well?" His response was, "You women! You always want to have all the power!" Evidently, it was his perception that for a woman to have some of the power (over her own body!) in a relationship completely stripped him of any power. Needless to say (I hope!), a second date did not occur.

63Arctic-Stranger
Dec 18, 2007, 5:21 pm

Now I am really chillin'. It was -28 this morning, and may get colder as the day progresses. That is -28 F, not C. (Something like -32C, I think.)

I agree that women do not have power over men, for the most part. But when men percieve they do, as this (very rude) man did on the date, they tend to respond poorly.

On the other hand, when I worked with youth groups, I did my best to encourage the girls to say "no" if they meant "no." And I encouraged the guys to respect the girls enough, so that they would be on the same page, in terms of expectations.

64margad
Dec 18, 2007, 8:28 pm

I agree, women and girls should always say "no" if that's what they mean. On the particular date I was talking about, things were still at the "trying to steer things in a certain direction" stage when I got frustrated and spoke more directly, thus triggering what I thought was a breathtakingly weird view of sexual power dynamics.

"No" is not always interpreted to mean that. I had a neighbor once who used to complain about his girlfriend to me, telling me she was always saying "no" to sex but that she didn't really mean it. I think he wanted me to concede that in such a case, it might be okay for him to ignore her "no" answer. I said, if she said "no" when she in fact did want to have sex, then maybe her proper punishment was not to get the sex she really wanted to have. I never met the girlfriend, so can't comment on her motivations.

65Arctic-Stranger
Dec 18, 2007, 8:30 pm

I said, if she said "no" when she in fact did want to have sex, then maybe her proper punishment was not to get the sex she really wanted to have.

Snort!

66margad
Dec 18, 2007, 8:37 pm

He wasn't very happy with that answer.

67Atomicmutant
Dec 18, 2007, 11:07 pm

I second that *snort*!

Bad girl, bad girl, no sex for you! So there! Take THAT!

68Busifer
Dec 19, 2007, 3:25 am

A time-honoured female strategy is to make the men think they make their own decisions, while in reality the woman has steered them in a certain way.

My mum, who lived in another era as women's rights go, adhered strictly to this one. Personally I find it a bit dishonest; I always say what I want. But in circumstances were women are disregarded it I think it's a valid strategy.
Unfortunately, when the males find out they feel cheated and reacts with a tightening of their repressive methods of choice.

69joehutcheon
Dec 19, 2007, 6:07 am

Which reminds me of an old 'Punch' cartoon:

Bishop to servant:

'Who is it that knows everything we do, who can read our thoughts, and from whom nothing can be hidden?'

Servant:

'The missus!'

70margad
Dec 20, 2007, 11:23 pm

You're right on all three counts, Busifer #68: a time-honored strategy, more than a bit dishonest, and valid if women have no other way of being heard and getting their needs met. This kind of manipulation was very prevalent among women of my parents' generation (who came of age during and before the WWII period). It seems to be extremely hard for women who adopted this life strategy to let go of it when the need no longer exists - for example when dealing with their grown children of whatever gender. The distortions and frustrations it causes in relationships present a good argument for gender equality, so the need for such manipulation never arises.

71littlegeek
Dec 21, 2007, 12:08 am

It used to be that "nice girls" didn't ever want sex. So they didn't want to admit it, or were in denial that those funny feelings were about S-E-X.

I don't see any reason for women not knowing their own desires these days, tho. Has anyone watched TV or played a video game lately?

72heinous-eli
Dec 21, 2007, 1:41 am

I don't see any reason for women not knowing their own desires these days, tho. Has anyone watched TV or played a video game lately?

Yes, and 98% of that stuff is heterosexist, catered-to-men nonsense. Video games are especially bad, since all the women in there are too "perfect" to be real, and women are left to compare themselves with not only unrealistic but unreal standards for their bodies.

Television and video games aren't where women learn to be assertive about their desires in a positive way. It's really the Internet, books, and some movies (including couples' and female-oriented porn) where they can come to terms with their own sexuality.

73Busifer
Dec 21, 2007, 3:04 am

#70 - It seems to be extremely hard for women who adopted this life strategy to let go of it when the need no longer exists - for example when dealing with their grown children of whatever gender. The distortions and frustrations it causes in relationships present a good argument for gender equality, so the need for such manipulation never arises.

Agree completely.

74littlegeek
Dec 21, 2007, 5:01 pm

#72 I agree it's sexist crap. I was being a bit facetious, actually.

It will be better when women actually write and produce more tv, movies and video games. Perhaps men might learn a thing or two. (Help stamp out "porno tongue"!)

75Choreocrat
Dec 21, 2007, 7:59 pm

(Help stamp out "porno tongue"!)

I don't think I want to know...

76Arctic-Stranger
Dec 21, 2007, 8:56 pm

Does this have anthing to do with postage stamps?

77littlegeek
Dec 23, 2007, 11:36 pm

#76 No.

79Choreocrat
Dec 23, 2007, 11:50 pm

Well, that could have been worse... :)

80littlegeek
Dec 24, 2007, 1:09 pm

well, here's an example.