A curious topic

[Dante's Stalker]

So this has been on my mind for a few days now and I think it would make for a good discussion.
Feminism and religion, how the two contradict each other and how they link together.

As per wikipedia:

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."[3]
Feminist theory, which emerged from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender.

Each religion has their own set of laws that they need to abide by (and so does every different culture for that matter), for example, in China there is discriminated against baby girls because of the 'one child' law, and they would rather have a boy to continue the family name than a girl, hence there being 70% more girls in orphanages than boys.

In South Africa for most Boere, it's an unspoken unwritten creed that boys have to exert their dominance via discriminating/manipulating girls in subtle yet crude ways. (En as jy nie saam stem nie is dit net omdat die waarheid seer maak) In this case, with most Boere claiming to be Christian of some denomination or the other, they think it's okay because the Bible says that the man is the head of the house.

That's culture. That's society and how it differs from place to place.

Most women have come far with the feminist movement. Women can get into the work force easier now, they can have families and juggle a career, they can switch roles and become the breadwinner while the man stays at home and does kitchen-duty (or whatever). Women can vote, women can serve in the navy, women can speak up for their needs and be granted that they will be heard. This isn't the case in the Islamic/Muslim faith as women are very easily labelled harlots or disobedient and the men are empowered to put them to death if they feel their religion has been breached. Feminism, therefore, in the eyes of some religions will be seen as evil.

You don't have to be religious or even spiritual to support feminism or to be a feminist, so anyone should feel free to join in the discussion. I'm just mentioning religion because I am Christian and I do believe in equality, because in God's eyes we are all equal, and in the Christian faith there ought to be no discrimination against women because we were created 'from the rib of man', and marriage is a sacred union because two souls become one, two lives become one, two heads are better than one, if one stumbles the other will catch them, in other words, they are both equal because they are one and the same and so both have equal worth and equal rights.

I feel that feminism stems from the religious scriptures, either because of the supression of women or because it's mentioned that women and men are equal. Society created feminism, and though I do see the pros of the movement, there are also some laws that goes against the grain of my faith (promoting bodily integrity, autonomy and reproductive rights for women such as abortion and contraceptives) which is why I would rather say I'm for equality than claim myself a feminist.

If you support feminism (or not) why do you support and in what way do you support the movement? If you are feminist (or not) share with us why you are a feminist, how you came to be a feminist, or how you feel your life is affected by being feminist.

 

[ZeroLove]

I'm not religious, but the text in blue above is something I completely agree with. We are all humans no matter the gender, sexuality, colour of skin, culture, whatever. We are all humans. I always start at that point when meeting new people, being on an equal level and then my opinion about a person changes the more I learn to know about him or her.

I'm also very sexual in nature and open-minded about it, so when I see a woman, I also look at the outer qualities. I appreciate when a beautiful woman shows her attributes, but I appreciate the same thing about men! I treat both genders equally in that sense and that is when I start to collide with feminists. The few feminists I have met in my life have always bantered at me for appreciating those things in women, but then we are no longer in "equal rights" territory, then it is about sexual freedom, because the same feminists don't see that I appreciate the same when it is with men! I treat them equally, so why is it a bad thing when I enjoy seeing women in little clothing when I do the same with men?
That is when I think the feminists (the ones I have met) are wrong in their statements. I support what feminism represents, the equality of both sexes all over the world, but in these cases, I do not support the feminists who are trying to use feminism as an excuse for their other agendas.

Here's an example: Women in games have often and still are depicted scantily clad. The feminists I have met wants the women to be covered up and not to be seen as sexual objects where I want the men to be just as scantily clad and also be seen as sexual objects, but for some reason that is just not good enough for them. I call that having double standards and pushing forth an agenda that doesn't have anything to do with equal rights.

 

[V]

Am I a feminist? In the true sense of the real definition, which is about equality? Absolutely.

Unfortunately the word 'feminist' has become associated with its almost complete opposite in popular culture lately - people have begun to label overbearing personalities or inequality in which women are the favoured sex as 'feminism' incorrectly.

I support the movement through my actions (with a 'yes I can' attitude and through trying to be self-sufficient), and through advising other females that there is no reason they should feel inferior as long as they are willing to be capable, and males that there is no reason they should necessarily feel superior without a VERY good reason. If someone truly is superior at something, there can be no dispute; in the past patriarchal societies first suppressed women from intellectual disciplines for example, and then used the evident lack of women in such fields to justify their exclusion. As we now know, women are just as capable in science and engineering as men, there are just not so many of them in the field, but then there are not so many men in the field of nursing or childcaring - that does not mean they are incapable by any stretch. There are actually very few things either sex can do that the other can't, and those are biological; the usual argument is their 'efficiency' at it.

I am the way I am because I was not particularly personally comfortable with the labels popularly ascribed to women and girls in this and other societies. I rejected any of those labels and considered myself my own invention, even as a child, I think. Over time, I realized I didn't have any beef with being female, I had a problem with other people's perception of females, and eventually came to realize that other people's perceptions really shouldn't matter to me so much. I was always fiercely independent, somewhat aggressive and dominant regarding anything to do with myself, perhaps because I somehow perceived at a young age some sexist viewpoint that I should be the opposite and rebelled? I don't know. For a long time as a kid I thought I might even be a boy in a girl's body - simply because I did not like to be treated in the way women appeared to be treated, and which they appeared to tolerate, while I would NOT tolerate it, and I would get into trouble without a care to defend my personal honour. It maddened me to see how women appeared to have put up with rampant sexism for thousands of years, and I was just as angry at them for allowing it as at men for perpetuating it. In a way the perceived prejudice against females was *mine* for believing it at that time! My parents were never like that, they were especially neutral with me, and encouraged me always to shoot for my goals, which I do. But somewhere else I got this idea that I *should* be something else and I absolutely and rather violently rejected conforming to it. I raised myself to be this person who never gelled with the roles and expectations of being a woman - and quite deliberately, I think. To assert myself and my own values upon life, getting rid of all the preconceived ones I saw in the media and elsewhere. Those values are that nobody has any greater inherent value than I do, and I am not better than anyone else inherently, and that there is no true difference between people. In that sense I have lived this idea of equality all my life and never backed down to anyone over it. It's as much a part of 'me' as the body I've got to live in.

I think in some ways I experienced gender dysphoria rather than feeling glad or contented to be female, for physical reasons. Now I don't feel happy or sad about it either way, it doesn't really matter any more. However I still believe 100% that women and men are no 'better' than each other and that anyone can do anything that is physically within their capacity, much of this sexism today is pathetic hot air and people trying to create a sense of superiority for themselves by looking down on others. I don't need to do it because I've built my system of self respect on doing what I set out to do, and I need only impress myself. I don't need to belittle anyone else to feel proud.

Sure, men and women can work together at their best capacities and that is wonderful if they do and want to. It doesn't take account of people like me though, who have never automatically accepted what they are, and have had to adjust and adapt to it. But I suppose my personal gripes with 'femaleness' are beside the issue - regardless of how I feel, I support women and I believe they should be given equality. Not preferential treatment - but a sensible form of equality.

 

[Meg]

If you support feminism (or not) why do you support and in what way do you support the movement? If you are feminist (or not) share with us why you are a feminist, how you came to be a feminist, or how you feel your life is affected by being feminist.

@.@ This thread was made for me. Literally.

Well, I've been a feminist my whole life. I just didn't realize it until about a year and a half ago. I didn't know that the thing I was feeling building inside of me was feminism. I just believed all the stereotypes. Well long story short, I realized I was feminist.

My life has been effected both positively and negatively by feminism. On one hand been spat on, ridiculed, and even lost friends over my beliefs. On the other hand I've met some of the most understanding and accepting people whom I am proud to call my friends thanks to feminism. I know not all feminists are great people. The thing is no movement is perfect because no one person is perfect. People use beautiful things like feminism and Christianity to justify their hate. This is wrong and down right disgusting. It reflects poorly on the group as a whole.

I don't agree with everything feminists fight for since I am sorta pro-life. But over all I think feminism, and most feminists, are beautiful.

 

[Virago]

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm always amazed when these kinds of topics pop up in these kinds of forums. Feminism and religion are pretty heavy for a bunch of people brought together by a video game.

So what the hell, I'll jump in. First, neither feminism nor "religion" are monoliths. There are all different kinds of both, some of which are extreme and some of which any of us can relate to. Who's to say any of them are wrong, relatively speaking?

Second, as an atheist who's rather hostile to religious belief, I find it a little odd that some one like yourself, who's a believer, would posit that feminism is derived from religion. I'm still not following your logic there; most Western religions (and you seem to be Christian) have common elements of control over their populations. Feminism in the more modern sense was about breaking through those controls for both sexes.

Third, my personal feelings on feminism and social justice in general can best be summarized in the opening quote from "The Departed": No one gives it to you. You have to take it.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm always amazed when these kinds of topics pop up in these kinds of forums. Feminism and religion are pretty heavy for a bunch of people brought together by a video game.

So what the hell, I'll jump in. First, neither feminism nor "religion" are monoliths. There are all different kinds of both, some of which are extreme and some of which any of us can relate to. Who's to say any of them are wrong, relatively speaking?

Second, as an atheist who's rather hostile to religious belief, I find it a little odd that some one like yourself, who's a believer, would posit that feminism is derived from religion. I'm still not following your logic there; most Western religions (and you seem to be Christian) have common elements of control over their populations. Feminism in the more modern sense was about breaking through those controls for both sexes.

Third, my personal feelings on feminism and social justice in general can best be summarized in the opening quote from "The Departed": No one gives it to you. You have to take it.

You might want to reread that paragraph I wrote, again, because I made the connection there eg. God sees all people as equal, and feminism is about creating equal rights for women because the men of the world look down on them. Feminism is about women being seen as equal to men. God sees men and women as equals. That's my logic.

 

[Virago]

You might want to reread that paragraph I wrote, again, because I made the connection there eg. God sees all people as equal, and feminism is about creating equal rights for women because the men of the world look down on them. Feminism is about women being seen as equal to men. God sees men and women as equals. That's my logic.

Well, that's cool, but I'm still wondering why you believe that.

Here, have a Bible-specific link. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=women bible

Edit: Here's a more direct one. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3006

 

[Meg]

Well, that's cool, but I'm still wondering why you believe that.

Here, have a Bible-specific link. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=women bible

Edit: Here's a more direct one. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3006

The Bible cannot be taken literally. It has been changed and translated so many times. Sure, there is truth to it, but that truth is buried under crap and one has to really search to find it. God is loving. He is not about to declare one sex superior to the other since all people are under God. I don't care what the Bible says on this matter because it's wrong.

 

[Virago]

The Bible cannot be taken literally. It has been changed and translated so many times. Sure, there is truth to it, but that truth is buried under crap and one has to really search to find it. God is loving. He is not about to declare one sex superior to the other since all people are under God. I don't care what the Bible says on this matter because it's wrong.

First, I don't really have an opinion on whether the bible as a whole or its god is good or loving, but the proof is in the pudding on gender issues and Christianity. My question to the OP was and still is: How to you conclude that religion created feminism? As a sort-of feminist whose background on feminism is based in leftist theory, I'm not getting it.

Second, my wank-sense is tingling, so I'm going to bow out of this one. Cheers.

 

[Meg]

First, I don't really have an opinion on whether the bible as a whole or its god is good or loving, but the proof is in the pudding on gender issues and Christianity. My question to the OP was and still is: How to you conclude that religion created feminism? As a sort-of feminist whose background on feminism is based in leftist theory, I'm not getting it.

Second, my wank-sense is tingling, so I'm going to bow out of this one. Cheers.

Wank? :lol:

 

[Dante's Stalker]

Well, that's cool, but I'm still wondering why you believe that.

Here, have a Bible-specific link. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=women bible

Edit: Here's a more direct one. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3006[/quote]

Sorry I didn't even bother to read the Old Testament quotes because we're not living in prehistoric times anymore, y'know, and after Jesus came things changed (a lot) so the views on how things were done in the Old Testament no longer apply to today.
But (my statements in red)
NEW TESTAMENT

Quote:

Quote:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

This passage implies that the woman is meant to support the man, that the woman should not put herself on a pedestole over the man, and to not 'lecture' or 'teach' as they say, a man. Why? Well you hear women complain all the time that men think they're right even when they're wrong. There's no point in arguing about it because it won't change their minds and it will only cause bad blood. Women are also a lot more vulnerable and susceptible to being deceived and manipulated than men are, because we think and act on our emotions instead of logic, like men do. We're connected differently than men. And honestly, I'm fairly sure women back then used to nag nag nag, just like we do today (well, I try REAL hard not to because it's tiring, ineffective, and incredibly irritating). There's also a children's poem about learning in silence:

A wise old owl lived in an oak
The more he saw the less he spoke
The less he spoke the more he heard.
Why can't we all be like that wise old bird?

That, and women tend to talk a lot more than men. You can't learn something new if you don't shut up once in a while and listen.



woman is second class citizen and must show it accordingly

Quote:

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. 1Corinthians

This is symbolic, and I doubt in any way that it is derogatory toward women. Man is the head of the woman (except in my brother in-law's case and that doesn't seem to be working out very well with the family), which I take to mean as he is the one who makes the major decisions, he's the one who is held accountable for the wellbeing and safety of his family, he is the provider, teacher, protector and leader in his household. Christ, being the head of the man, means that the man must live as Christ did, that his actions and decisions are guided by Christ's deeds and parables, that through his faith and relationship with Christ he, and so his family, are saved, and that his go-to-man is Jesus when he needs advice or direction. God is the head of Christ because Jesus is OF God, and God is provider, teacher, protector and king.
This does not mean that women are not of worth. If that were the case I doubt there'd be ANY mention of them in the Bible. We may not be the HEAD of the man, but we most certainly are the feet that carry him. WE give birth, WE nurture, WE care, all under the protection of the MAN.

women don't have right to interfere in society - they must listen to their husbands

Quote:

34 let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says.
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.
1 Corinthians
LOL this is funny.
This doesn't mean women have no right to interfere in society. This is a scenario about church, eg. the mention of assemblies. The church I grew up in had no women on the church council committee. We had our own sisters committee where we chattered about church matters but again, as I said before, women do think, feel and react differently to things than men do. Our methods of achieving goals are different to that of men. This is basically a verse taken out of context. If I had to translate it into modern day English, it would read:
Tell your wives to shut up at assembly, they're allowed to come with you but this is an issue for us men to deal with. They can voice their opinions in the privacy of your house.
(Because we all know once one starts, the rest join in)
It may sound demoralising, but it's not, this is similar to a working man going to a mother's group discussion. It's best if he doesn't ask any questions, fetch the ladies more coffee and learn through SUBJECTION. Women, as far as I know, weren't elected as high priestesses or put in charge of any of the church matters back then. You can't speak truthfully or wisely about something you know little to nothing about.
Also, I don't understand your question. I thought I already answered why I believe feminism sprouted from religion?

 

[V]

I think it would easy to slither down a slope from here into a big debate about the 'literalness' of the Bible which I'm not sure DS wants.

I know a lot of arguments on the subject begin because those saying the Bible should be taken literally will not accept that some people have their own interpretations of God. I think, actually, that EVERYONE's interpretation of God is personal and different, and that includes those who don't believe in a god. Nobody takes the Bible absolutely literally without injecting their own interpretations as well, it's impossible. And a lot of people think that the Bible is the centre of the Christian religion, when actually I think it's more like the 'human heart'. Because that's the thing that allows any piece of writing to have an affect upon any of us, as it were, or allows the acceptance or love of a God at all. Not a book. The book's just a guide or a record. Using the entirety of it to define every aspect of one's life was never set down in the Bible itself either. Saying that Christians are the living embodiment of what's set down in the Bible would be silly. I know quite a few Christians and none of them go about spouting sexist scripture as an excuse to be sexist themselves, they really don't. The popular perception of something and the reality are often VERY different. . .

More I would say that the Christians I know try to follow the teachings or morals of Christ, not the book itself. That would be an overall idea of how Christ behaved and performed, which to most people who have not read the Bible from cover to cover means striving to be 'good and kind' as opposed to the opposite. They may not take it all literally, but it doesn't matter if they are trying to be good people.

 

[Angel]

Just to butt in - the vast majority of so-called "anti-women scriptures" are actually largely cultural issues from the time they were written as opposed to "woman, shut your face" sort of stuff. At the time of writing, there was significant issue concerning women gossiping rather loudly in the back of church and disrupting everything - you have to remember that this was all radical new stuff: women and men in the SAME building receiving the SAME teaching at the SAME time. It was a MASSIVE deal at the time - completely against everything anyone was used to. It has no historical precedent - it was truly a major change in how religion was taught.

For former Jews, to be taught by a woman would have caused major problems. The way things worked back then, both in the temple and in the home, was that the man was in charge. The woman had specific roles to play and the man had his. To put a woman in the place of spiritual teaching over the men would have meant a lot, if not all men, would have rejected it out of hand. Nowadays (at least in the church I am in which is non-denominational), women may teach so long as they are accountable to the leaders of the church. Same goes for men - it's completely equal in that respect.

Women had positions of authority throughout the bible - Deborah was such a woman in the Old Testament who was a Judge, warrior, prophetess and counsellor. There are a number of verses within the bible which are specific in being non-specific about sex/gender/whatever the correct term is - two of especial note are:

Galatians 3 verse 28 which states: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no MALE or FEMALE, for you ARE ALL ONE in Christ Jesus.

There is also something from the Old Testament in Genesis whereby it states that there was "no helper for Adam" - the word used for helper there is actually someone or something of great significance and does not imply subordinate or slave but rather the sort of help that only God can give.

The bible, as Lexy has said, is not central to the Christian faith. It is the life, death, resurrection and consequential salvation through Jesus Christ, the Son of God that is central. The various themes of the bible are essential for guidance but knowing the book from one end to the other is pointless in itself - as it would be with any other book. There must be application for something you read to have any real effect. Relationship is one of the main themes of the faith - the redemptive power of what Jesus did on the cross so that people can have relationship with God and then forge relationships with others that are in line with how Christ conducted himself.

Reading the bible - or indeed any religious text - is not a light undertaking. You simply cannot read it at face value if you want to be able to understand it in order to use it. When people start quoting it left, right and centre without a clear understanding of what the context is, I just facepalm. You have to know what you're talking about before you start spouting it. To say "well I read it once" or "I went to church when I was younger" is not a qualification. It's just a bit of your personal history. Why do you think people have devoted many years to becoming scholars of theology? It's not something you just pick up one day, completely comprehend inside of an hour and then spout at other people. You must learn the context, the style, the history, the symbolism, the culture etc - only then can you truly charge your arguments with the backing of scripture. When I see people just vomiting up something they wiki'd that's in the bible without any knowledge of what they are on about, it's almost a facepalm moment. Truly. I may as well start quoting bits of the Koran - I know nothing about it, but hey! If it serves my argument then why not?

tl;dr - I have no idea whether feminism came from the bible or not. There are certainly things in there to suggest revolutionary thinking concerning the role of women in society as well as cultural or symbolic aspects which suggest otherwise. But without knowing what else was written at the time, or even before the bible, concerning women and the world at large, it would be premature of me to make a decision either way.

 

[ZeroLove]

Continued from the ranting thread:

That's like saying I disagree with homosexuality because I'm not gay myself. As I've said soooo many times I'm a feminist. I believe in social, political, and economic equality for the sexes regardless of race, sexual orientation, class, etc.

I think you misunderstood what I meant, but I guess I didn't explain it all too well. Sorry about that.
What I meant was that you and I were disagreeing what it meant to be equal some time ago, with the whole Final Fantasy 13-2 DLC where Serah gets that skimpy outfit. I said I'd want Noel to get a skimpy outfit as well, because then it would be equal with Serah, but you were more focused on getting Serah covered up so she wouldn't be put forth as a sex-object. But that particular reason has nothing to do with equality. If both Noel and Serah were put forth as sex-objects, they would be equal, right?

 

[Meg]

Continued from the ranting thread:




I think you misunderstood what I meant, but I guess I didn't explain it all too well. Sorry about that.
What I meant was that you and I were disagreeing what it meant to be equal some time ago, with the whole Final Fantasy 13-2 DLC where Serah gets that skimpy outfit. I said I'd want Noel to get a skimpy outfit as well, because then it would be equal with Serah, but you were more focused on getting Serah covered up so she wouldn't be put forth as a sex-object. But that particular reason has nothing to do with equality. If both Noel and Serah were put forth as sex-objects, they would be equal, right?

AH! Now I got you.

It's equal to portray men and women the same way, yes. But it's also equally degrading to portray them in such a way. It's reducing a person to being something to look at as their primary role. Portraying men and women equally bad is not much of an equality at all. Especially given how much media influences a society.

Although, I'm not going to think less of someone that likes to look at pics of naked/near naked people. To each their own.

 

[V]

Yeah I don't think that is really the way forward in terms of equality. If you have a man and a woman and degrade them equally, you may be making a show of equality, but are still degrading them. Maybe the problem is more in how 'people' are being valued in society.

Seeing people as mere sex objects is something I've never personally liked to do or to see others doing, but as Meg said above me, people can obviously do whatever they want, and do treat people as sex objects, and that's kind of sad to see if that's all a person is to them. If equality ever comes, I expect it will be of the "let's see both as sex objects! And plaster them everywhere!" rather than the, "let's not objectify them so much" variety.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

I have nothing to add, other than I agree with everything everyone has said ('cept for Zerolove, sorry )
And I'm a fan of Spartacus. *guilty face* I love history, I hate foul language, and I admire the human body in its natural state. I like to draw naked people of any age, gender and race. Admiring a newborn from head to toe and studying the anatomy of an old person are all the same to me. There's nothing wrong with the nude body or looking at it, but it does depend on the mindset you are looking at it with. I don't see people as sexual objects, I see them as individuals with unique characteristics that set them apart from everyone else. There's beauty in diversity. I'm not asexual or a horndog either.

That is all. ^_^

 

[ZeroLove]

Why is it so wrong to celebrate people as sexual beings? Why do people find that degrading?

 

[DreadnoughtDT]

Why is it so wrong to celebrate people as sexual beings? Why do people find that degrading?

I think it's because sex is still considered something that is "taboo" to speak of normally. Like, we shouldn't see a person as a sexual being, because it would become part of our personal stereotype of said person. To each their own though, it isn't a bad thing if you're nice about it in my opinion.

 

[ZeroLove]

I think it's because sex is still considered something that is "taboo" to speak of normally. Like, we shouldn't see a person as a sexual being, because it would become part of our personal stereotype of said person. To each their own though, it isn't a bad thing if you're nice about it in my opinion.

Sex is as natural as eating, breathing and sleeping. It is one of our prime needs, it is encoded in our DNA, it is part of who we are as human beings. It is not wrong and shouldn't be taboo.