Organized religion.

[Pure]

Scheherazade and some others say it's bad for women.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Some good links for the feminists

 

[rgraham666]

The problem isn't religion, its power.

All religions give power to those in positions of responsibility. This gives them the ability to decide what the religion is for, what purpose it serves. Ultimately, this becomes getting more power for those in charge.

And people with power always limit who can get the power so none of theirs is diluted.

Also, people get caught in their culture and most cultures limit the power of women. Religion just becomes another cultural tool in this case.

But that's changing. Our culture allows more power to women. And some of our religions are as well.

We may slide back, we might improve. But that's just humanity in action.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

The problem isn't religion, its power.

All religions give power to those in positions of responsibility. This gives them the ability to decide what the religion is for, what purpose it serves. Ultimately, this becomes getting more power for those in charge.

And people with power always limit who can get the power so none of theirs is diluted.

Also, people get caught in their culture and most cultures limit the power of women. Religion just becomes another cultural tool in this case.

But that's changing. Our culture allows more power to women. And some of our religions are as well.

We may slide back, we might improve. But that's just humanity in action.

I think you've nailed it.

And people with power always limit who can get the power so none of theirs is diluted.

its also what they choose to do with that power that makes a difference. Heretics or Heros? what course do they follow?

 

[neonlyte]

The problem isn't religion, its power.

All religions give power to those in positions of responsibility. This gives them the ability to decide what the religion is for, what purpose it serves. Ultimately, this becomes getting more power for those in charge.

And people with power always limit who can get the power so none of theirs is diluted.

Also, people get caught in their culture and most cultures limit the power of women. Religion just becomes another cultural tool in this case.

But that's changing. Our culture allows more power to women. And some of our religions are as well.

We may slide back, we might improve. But that's just humanity in action.

One might also argue that those who seek a powerbase, through nebulous means, lack the personal power to chose their own destiny. (I'll get lynched for this.)

Theology, in all it's guises, is a personal choice - I'm against it being thrust upon others when so many of the problems we encounter seem to derive from theological difference.

 

[Pure]

seem to, yes. but in the case of ireland, say, underneath the religious differences....

 

[neonlyte]

seem to, yes. but in the case of ireland, say, underneath the religious differences....

I spent a lot of time in the Irish Republic last year (the SO was doing a big arts project there). I was there in January, March, June, September and October. The dates are only important because the Pope died in June, my wife was working with school kids on an island community and we knew the Pope's death was going to interrupt the work programme. Do you know what - it didn't even register with them until we pointed out that perhaps the school wouldn't be open on 'funeral day'.

OK - you can't judge a nation by a single event, but it sure struck me as out of kilter with the overseas perspective of the Irish Republic and its religious zeal.

We were working in Skibbereen, a town near Baltimore (where many of the settlers sailed from to - Baltimore USA). The town is the epicentre of the Irish Famine. My wife's work is concerned with the ephemeral qualities of 'bread', bread the 'host', bread the 'body of christ', bread the political tool etc... you get the drift. The Famine was off limits - couldn't be discussed - political overtones and all that. But, one of the selected venues for the artists exhibiting was supposed to be the shut down Protestant Church in the centre of the town. This was a wierd place filled with cultural hatred. All protestant paraphenalia from West Cork had been brought and stored in this unused church. Political statues, memorial stones, building inscriptions etc...

I began to accept the fundamental difference between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland was cultural/political and not a religious divide. Sure, religion is the cleaver, but the cut is deeper - it bleeds still.

 

[Tuomas]

The key phrase is "organized religion", not just the judeo-christian-islam (or semite) faiths. The worship of Cali in pre-colonial India, Pakistan and Nepal was quite organized, and we know hardly misogynic. Throughout history, there has been cult to goddesses, and deference to women. Most "pagan" religions were recognized as having siginifcant female influences -although, we can argue whether they were "organized" or not.


Anyway, "misogyny" really has more to do with culture than with religion or who wants to keep power. In fact, I fairly doubt there ever was -or still is- a "war of the sexes". I mean, of you search back in history, there have been many case where women have acquired almost if not absolute power -and their societies remained just as "misogynistic" as under their male predecessors or successors. Such exaples include Cathrine the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Mary and Cartimandua.

One might also argue that those who seek a powerbase, through nebulous means, lack the personal power to chose their own destiny. (I'll get lynched for this.)

*gets rope*

 

[neonlyte]

*gets rope*

Yes... but have just posted a piece of stained glass as my avatar - I'm not 'holy bad'.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Tuomas]

Would women, given the sole ability to decide, be any different? We'll never know unless, and until all warfare becomes technical/mechanical, and a woman is the bestest at it. It won't matter then, though, I'm afraid.

Army are made primarly of men, but they did serve the Queen ("For Queen and Country" and all that.) Queen Mary is recorded as one of the most vicious tyrants in British history, who decreed that all celebration of the anglican faith be punished with death. So much killing occured under her reign, that she was known as "Bloody Mary"; and while she was still on her deathbed, the people of London were celebrating in the streets. So, being able to get away with murder, she clearly was in charge. Not only that, and against the insistence of her court, she spent a lot of time flirting with Spain, most particularly with it's King.

Of course we can argue that kings and queens aren't really all-powerful, and ultimately must follow the proscribed destiny of their people. But the point is, even though women have obtained large slices of power, they have not been less misogynistic. Women have always weilded huge amounts of power over men on a personal level. Feminine rants aside, maybe the average woman wants things like this.

Not a complain about men, it's just sayin that men have the wherewithall to be "powerful" in the field, and always have been, and thus women, needing to have children, and raise them, have been subserviant. Hmm!

The same could be said of men

How many men get raped versus women being raped, do you think? Just sayin again where "power" is.

I don't think "rape" is a meansure of power. Rape is a measure of sickness.

 

[IveBeenMunsoned]

The problem isn't religion, its power.

All religions give power to those in positions of responsibility. This gives them the ability to decide what the religion is for, what purpose it serves. Ultimately, this becomes getting more power for those in charge.

And people with power always limit who can get the power so none of theirs is diluted.

Also, people get caught in their culture and most cultures limit the power of women. Religion just becomes another cultural tool in this case.

But that's changing. Our culture allows more power to women. And some of our religions are as well.

We may slide back, we might improve. But that's just humanity in action.

Rob completely nailed it. Being in a non-religious support group could be the same thing, depending on who belongs and how charismatic they are. People use any philosophy to justify what they want to believe and act out. The thing that was mentioned, but should be made more clear is how many people seek out organized religion because it fits into their agenda. Really loving, good people often seek religion because it gives them an outlet (or at least reaffirms) their compassion. People who need to feel superior to others (or want to take advantage of others) often seek it out because they see ways to make themselves more powerful, even if it's only in a small measure.

The bible itself (at least the Christian bible) is a mixture of repression of women and exultation of them. I am fairly certain that is due more to the time it was written, then anything else. There is enough it it, that it's easy to twist it into saying what you want to believe. I tend to go more by the spirit of the New Testament (even though that has a number of issues for me as well). As for repressing women, I doubt our female minister would tell you she feels repressed by it...or she's a glutton for punishment.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[ishtat]

The Great Goddess

In'anna, Astarte, Asherah Isis Cybele Demeter Persephone Mary whatever you like to call her .Is it Ok to worship her - especially if the male godhead (the king ) is sacrificed to the fertility of the coming seasons?

 

[Boota]

I said yes, but I really believe religion is bad for everyone.

 

[Tuomas]

Nor, I believe, do we wish to compare how many men versus women wielded the power, do we? And to make it all germane to this thread, how many men versus women wield religious power? The fingers of your hands can probably tell of the women, as well as some bible verses that have recently been used to disenfranchise women in the church. Let's see, McPherson, Eddy (sp?), the Seventh Day lady whose name presently escapes me, and a select few others, but definitely not the likes of Tammy Faye Baker.




I'm sure you're not saying that some men have/bear children. Okay, so there are some pussy-whipped men, or those who need it at times (I understand that such Dominatrix' began in England with men who "needed" to have the stresses of business relieved ). Those items aside, I think we agree that it can work both ways, but though women are in equal numbers, or perhaps more so at times, than men, the same ratio doesn't hold up in those who really wield power, not historically, nor at the present time. (Thinking now of "our great leader" in N. Korea who is said to love to take his pick of the loveliest of the nubile women available in the land, and such. Hmm, Genghis Kahn had "all" women of beauty brought to him from the far reaches of his subjugated kingdom, too.). How many women in history did that? I wonder.



Hmm, and not of culture? Have you checked the Congo lately, or Darfur? Okay, from our perspective, and perspective is everything to each person -- their reality -- that may be said to be somewhat true, but from their perspective, "it's the thing to do." It always has been. Even some churches that preach against it do it themselves (when they think no one of import is watching). Even popes have been more than known to do it (use women for their pleasure, not that they were all unwilling, but who knows, eh? Bet one of two didn't really want it.).

And how is it that a man can easily rape a woman if not by his power over her, and why it is not logical that women be normally able to do the same, since they have less power (the pussy-whipped aside, that is)?

Religion is power, and the power belongs to the men, save if men are enlightened, and even they they are loathe to give it up. Again, they use the bible, possibly the world's biggest hoax, to back up their so-called position.

Culture, and the power than set it all in motion, is just about everything.

Think I'll end this little diatribe now.

Except that Christianity isn't the only organized religion out there

Rather than pick at parts of your posts, a general comment: men have traditionally held positions of physical power -largely because they are physically stronger. However, women have largely held positions of spiritual/emotional power ... at least until the Christain faith came along. Largely speaking, women aren't interested in physical dominance of their peers. However, they are very much interested in a non-material dominance, and that is not more clearly displayed than the constant interest of women to be liked by other people. We all know that women get all dressed up, not to impress men, but to impress other women. To compete. Women and men compete in different things -it's just that the masculine competition and ultimate dominance is a lot more visible.

This is why the whole concept of a war of the sexes is completely flawed: men and women do not compete with eachother. Now that there is a thorough mixing of social rôles, they do; but in a natural setting, they don't.

Men, largely, are not concerned about being "pussy-whipped". Men spend a lot of time trying to make their woman happy (not women in general). I'm not talking about the dominatrix-esque dominance, but non-sexual things, like religion. The religion of a family is largely determined by the woman, as their church atendence. The make-up of the house is largely determined by women, along with the household diet, the clothes the family wears, what social activites they engage in... in fact, the husband is reduced to picking one night of the week for poker (if he is so lucky), and boy had he better not forget the aniversary! And men just submit. Why? Because they enjoy -sorry, crave- certain aspects of their lives to be controled by women.

And it's the same for women. There are certain aspects of their lives they want men to control.

Now, not everyone is the same, and there are some guys who can't stand their wife telling them what to eat, as there are women who hate men that insist on paying for dinner. Everyone is different.

However, there is a social tendency, that that is ultimately what creates our society. If we don't agree with that tendency, well, we usually end up short on luck.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I said NO. This is my reasoning. In history, all the artifacts dug up in France, Mesopotamia and the middle east have one thing in common - A Pregant "Mother Earth Figure". This is the symbol of nurturing and renewal. However, the man diaty has always been male. God referred to in both the Bible and the Koran as well as the Talmed the reference is "HE" not "SHE". In the Roman and Greek religions the "almighty" was male. I cannot think of a single eastern or western religion where this is not true, even the Egyptian religion. Among the Hindus there are female Gods/spirits, however, the "triad" or three major Gods are all male. Again this hold true with the pre-christian religions of the natives of Mexico, Central and South America.

Look at the world today. How many heads of state are women? Ghandi's wife and Maggie Thatcher were at one time, but were eventually replaced by men. The male symbol is the Lance which indicates protection and war.

I doubt that will change.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[CharleyH]

Scheherazade and some others say it's bad for women.

Interesting question. I am an admitted feminist and I do not feel that organized religion is 'inherantly' bad for women. I personally think organized religion is simply bad for all genders - LOL. Joking. I will read the other posts before making a serious comment. Interesting thought though.

 

[CharleyH]

I think you've nailed it.

I don't - quite - think so.

 

[CharleyH]

Theology, in all it's guises, is a personal choice - I'm against it being thrust upon others when so many of the problems we encounter seem to derive from theological difference.

This is one of the things I so detest about organized religion, particurly the Jehovah Witness group. Religion often reminds me of trends and when you don't concur with the majority, you're sort of an outcast. Theology, on the other hand, is a great discussion.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

:But that men spend a lot of time trying to make their woman happy? Now that's something that even the women of Lit would love to speak to.

I agree with Tuomas on that one, actually... but ya'll probably knew that

 

[JamesSD]

What an odd, oddly worded question.

Isn't organized religion already pretty much "unchecked"?

I'd say that most religions are gradually becoming more progressive socially, just slower than the world at large.

 

[Pure]

a couple thoughts.

i find a lot to agree with in these two comments by RG, and (miracle!) Tuomas:

RG //The problem isn't religion, its power.

All religions give power to those in positions of responsibility. This gives them the ability to decide what the religion is for, what purpose it serves. Ultimately, this becomes getting more power for those in charge.

And people with power always limit who can get the power so none of theirs is diluted.

Also, people get caught in their culture and most cultures limit the power of women. Religion just becomes another cultural tool in this case.//


Tuomas Anyway, "misogyny" really has more to do with culture than with religion or who wants to keep power.
---

P: I think religions mostly *follow* cultural trends. In the US, the Suffragists were often Quakers, but generally the churches were NOT favorable or in the forefront. IOW the mainstream churches pretty much reflected the prevailing view that women should not vote. Now all the mainstream churches eagerly endorse the women having a vote.

If you look at the gains for women and gays in the sixties, i think the movements outside the churches influenced the churches, hence you see the Anglican/Episcopalian church ordained women bishops, gay ministers. etc.

so, while i don't know all of Scheherezade's views, her statement, i think gives too much of the blame for misogyny on 'organized religion'; hence 'checking,' --i.e. curbing, limiting-- its influence is not necessarily the best approach.

THAT SAID, I agree that organized religion *backs up* and *supports* whatever misogyny there is, e.g. in the American South, or Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Yet a more liberal country like Egypt, has a more liberal version of Islam; i.e., Islam in Egypt, as in Turkey, *follows* the secular trend.

MORAL: if you want to 'check'--curb-- something, be active in influencing the government and society towards justice and fairness; work to curb the abuse of government power, for example.

 

[Explaura]

I say no..

although I kindof object to the question. Wheat do you mean by "allowed to develop unchecked" You make it sound like religion is all suppressed, as though there were some kind of weird commie police writing down liscense plate numbers outside churches. I think that religion is developing, and I think it is developing towards more liberal social values, one of which is value of all people. While I think that gender roles as dictated in some cultures and proscribed by some religions are unequal, I think that people buy into them less and less and that this is reflected in their practice of organized religions. Also.. lots of people arent jerks, and lots of sincere religious people are totally not jerks, and many sincere religious people with charisma and intelligence to influence their communities are not only not jerks but are women. I think misogyny is a personal problem. Maybe its hip in some places.. with some groups, religious or not, but really. Its like the gay marriage issue being discussed in other threads. Its not even really anything to argue about. Yes.. people not like you really are still people and they really are a lot like you.

Or.. Religion is the cultural infrastructure of the past. Inequality was a cultural given in the past. That is falling away because the culture is changing. Religion is no longer the main structure of cultural organization now. But, as far as developing, if organized religions want to maintain relevancy they need to speak to the cultural changes that are happening independantly of them. This means to me that any "developments" will be taking religion towards new cultural norms. At least, thats how I see it.

Of course change isn't easy as we can see in the conflicts all over the world.. People who don't want to change can coopt religion or tradition or any number of ideas to justify their opposition. It doesn't mean that religion as a concept is any more exclusively theirs than spirituality belongs to hippies or the new age.

In fact, once, religion was considered the major civilizing factor in bringing us away from cultures that were in certain ways far more brutal than those we now enjoy, if you can imagine that.

Religion isn't a monster itself. I think religion is even kinda good! Gee! Have any of you guys ever practiced a religion? Do you know any religious people? People get so caught up with the fringes, the ridiculous amount of worthwhileness that seems to me so evident at the heart of the idea gets ignored. Maybe people just like to be outraged.


(goodness.. a rant!!)