Religious male chauvinism

Discussion in 'Religion' started by mathman, Oct 22, 2021.

  1. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,901
    How is that all three Abrahamic religious extremes degrade women? Examples: Islam - Taliban And Saudi Arabia, Christianity - No women priests in Catholic church, Judaism - Orthodox has no women rabbis.

    Y am not familiar with other religions, but I would not be surprised by similar situations.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    Have you any instances where women hold the power in society and accordingly the positions of authority in the prevailing religious institutions?

    Would it then be natural to expect in such a society that their religious institutions (or comparable ideologies) might ,in a similar way "degrade men" ?

    So do regious institutions simply reflect the prevailing power structures in the various societies?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,180
    Off question, what English speaking countries have had a woman in power at least once.

    Canada - Kim Campbell
    UK - Margaret Thatcher
    Australia - Julia Gillard
    US - Nein

    There must be other English speaking countries, though.

    (Let's hope the US dares into consciousness their failings by electing Trump over Hillary. Even if the don't like her FFS.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    India
    NZ
    Burma (well she speaks English)

    Imelda Marcos in Philippines had any power?

    Must be many more
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,180
  9. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    Self interest is not intelligent?

    And conformity can mean you manufacture your own chains.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    It ain't intelligence, it's most likely an ego thing.
    Maybe, just maybe: There was an intuition that the male's cells had been invaded by female mitochondria who had taken over the day to day operation of the cell, and thereby the body, and so
    male chauvinism is just an ego defensive reaction.

    and
    It is broadly believed in the archaeological/anthropological community that pre-agriculture, hunter gathers had a female(females?) as their deity.
    so
    maybe it was a farming thing?

    Did Abraham have any daughters?
    and, if so would they have been mentioned?
     
  11. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,901
    It is true that modern day secular societies have women as leaders. but the question is about religions.

    The only daughter mentioned among Genesis patriarchs is Dinah (Jacob) where a massacre by Simeon and Levi led to a curse on their tribes (see Joshua).
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,774
    A sort of joke about the anthropology and history of humanity: Much of the human endeavor's superstitions arranged themselves around female mystery right up until the time the men figured out they were essential to reproduction, and we're all pretty much familiar with the result since then.

    Kenyatta's Facing Mt. Kenya includes a traditionalist defense of female genital mutilation in the tribes, but before even getting to that, the reader learns that once upon a time, the gods entrusted humanity to the creators of life, but those women became wicked and decadent, so the gods overturned that authority and gave power to their children, the men.

    And there is also a thesis to be dug out from somewhere, though I usually only encounter it tangentially or orbitally, as something going on around something else I'm studying, that has to do with the economics of the human endeavor. Koontz, in her history of marriage, noted somewhere in Asia a small population that practiced extended-familial fatherhood, and some of that seems motivated by the need to keep those women operating in the societal economy; the meta-analytical suggestion would be that the group cannot afford to relegate women. It all gets complicated; for instance, I so don't want to do the bit about Rousseau as a feminist.

    Sometimes it's easy to forget how capable people of antiquity were. But I think of a particular site that started with unusual cooperation among hunter-gatherers and what follows is a two-thousand year experience; it's even longer until the advent of writing over three thousand years later, and another two thousand years from then until the period of the Hebrew Scriptures. We might consider what it means to suggest that the the Hebrew Scriptures somehow reflect an historically affluent or even luxurious period. Similarly, we can suggest the overlapping Roman experience was so luxurious as to afford the rituals and symbolic value of the Vestal cult.

    So, inasmuch as I might have a grim joke about the rite of bitter water, that it was already known in the culture and wasn't invented on the spot by some scribe, we can also wonder approximately what is the luxury of a society that can afford to poison young women for the sake of some man's jealousy.

    Human societal endeavors, by the period of recording the Old Testament, were hardly new. Given that men were largely in power, and the most part of the scribes, we might expect their attitudes and perspectives to be woven into the recorded narratives.°

    And in the question of Abramism, everything just gets complicated from there.

    Pretty much any religion will reflect the prejudices of its earthly masters. Moreover, relationships between religion and other aspects of society can influence the regard for women within both. Trying to describe the (ahem …) place of women in Taoism is a complicated matter; indeed, it starts to read like the sort of dynamic historical thesis that some expect when comparing history to its living outcomes—that is to say, one can build a critical theory of the sexes, and even a critical theory of gender, just trying to figure it out. To wit, some strong, admirably virtuous women in the history of seeking perfection only did so in order to increase their marital prospects and be better wives; ask the socioeconomy at any particular time.

    Additionally, it's worth observing that, vis à vis other religions, Abramism as viewed through a Christian or post-Christianist lens presents an unusual perspective on religion in society, different from the rest of Abramism, or Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism, &c.; historian Karen Armstrong describes in modern Western thought an eccentric and idiosyncratic understanding of religion°°.

    And I cannot help but recall Emir Ali Khan°°° on prevailing ideologies, attitudes of mind, and the challenging thereof, or Kharkovli°°°° on the inner aspect of religion.

    If, for instance, it is true both that I do feel a particular severity about Abramism, and it is in no small part proximity and habit, the distortive effect is of even less certain description, but undoubtedly occurring.

    It is not a matter of surprise, or whether or not misogyny and male chauvinism are present in other religions; the comparative discussion is messy insofar as, say, a post-Christianist outlook requires multiple critical theses in order to pry its way out of an idiosyncratic box. Then again, for non-Abramic outlooks, the critical theses finding their way in must feel at least a little eccentric. And along the way, yes, each will find of others plenty that seems familiar.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° I'm uncertain what to do with the point that while Judaism is not matriarchal, Hebrew culture is matrilineal. It's not irrelevant, but it's an unwieldy something or other.

    °° See "On 'Religion'" #1↗; Armstrong suggests that since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, "our modern Western conception of 'religion' is idiosyncratic and eccentric. No other cultural tradition has anything like it, and even premodern European Christians would have found it reductive and alien." This is something of a complicating factor in comparative historical examinations of religion and society.

    °°° See "Degrees of Misogyny" #213↗; Khan proposes, "The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities."

    °°°° See "On faith" #72↗; we can derive from Kharkovli's explanation of Sufism the basic idea of an "inner aspect of religion", beliefs and practices that, "over a period of time, become covered by social, emotional and other accretions which are established into religions".
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,213
    If it comes down to believing that religion, ANY religion of any flavour, would solve its problems by giving equality to ALL adult humanity for me is a weird thought (by those thinking of the idea)

    I consider ALL humanity to be equal just by being

    For religion to step in and imply by following OUR beliefs (note beliefs) you will live forever and also whatever other nonsense the religion follows is pure delusion and arrogance

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. river

    Messages:
    16,943
    Any form of religion for me must include both sexes as Equal . If not , they not advanced thinking religions .
     
  15. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Mammals in general reveal the same behavior. Lions, elephants, apes, horses, etc act the same way.

    It is not only in humans the natural instinct of having men showing domination over women.

    Religion only tries to go in accord with nature, and even when we think such is wrong, is nature what it rules.

    Now well, today the mixture of several ideologies have modified the behavior in most societies of the world, but same as we want from societies with religious principles to respect our way of life, we also must respect and stop interfering in their way of life.

    For us, we don't see the horse as "degrading" the mare if the animal obligates the other to concede under the imposed dominance, and this is because such is nature. This is why we don't see lionesses grouping or fighting to have sex with the lion but is totally in reverse. We humans are mammals, but beyond our animal instinct we also have social laws, and laws are to be respected. Inside our societies we also have religions with religious laws, and religion is not to be attacked but tolerated by non religious people.

    Same as straight people tolerate others with different sexual orientations, same as well non religious people must respect the doctrines of religious people, even when we find them not in accord with our principles. They have their own principles as well.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    Correct. Some species are male dominated. Some species are female dominated. For example, bonobos (the primate most closely related to us genetically) have a female dominant society.
    Exactly. Nor in bonobos is the female degrading the male by dominating him. It's just nature.

    Fortunately, as more intelligent animals we can choose which system we would like.
    Of course. Just as men who prefer to be dominant have to tolerate women who want the same thing.
     
    Luchito likes this.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    I think religions can think whatever they want - as long as they obey the laws of the land. Heck, have an all-Nazi religion if you want. I'm not going to join it, and they don't get to lynch people or burn crosses (unless they are on their own property and they get a permit for the burn) but if that's what floats their boat . . .
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    16,943
    Shame really . Most religions don't put Humanity First and Foremost in their Philosophy .
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    That's . . . sort of the point of religion; it has a god it puts first. Movements that put humanity first are generally referred to as humanist, and they are close to, but not exactly, the opposites of religions.
     
    river likes this.
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,213
    Seriously?

    Religion only tries to go in accord with nature

    *Colour me speechless*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    James R likes this.
  21. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Sure, tolerance is what makes societies better places for communities of all kind living together. The government can't by any means give preferences to one over the rest. Authorities are not to promote a certain group over the others. Sadly, such ideals are just utopia.

    About your other point, I agree with your statements, and I would like to expand your input. With bonobos the female dominance is not female bonobo individuals taking power by their own but a kind of respect from male bonobos towards the seniority of older female bonobos. Like the group is lead by a queen bonobo but male bonobos are to lead when coupling and other different tasks.This is not a case of greater intelligence in bonobos, it appears is just about respect for the elder.

    Also, another example which is similar to bonobos groups is with killer whales. You also observe the older females lead. This is not happening with the younger females but with the older ones. It happens that for some reason, the sons of the female whale voluntarily will attach to the mother and will follow her closely. There are no indications that the mother forces them to be under her dominance.


    You can have a better example with female dominance with hyenas rather than bonobos. But the dominance is not by natural instinct of females having a greater status over males. It happens that hyenas, both sexes, when they are alone won't fight or attack other animals with greater stature. You might know that female hyenas are bigger than male hyenas, and this is the reason why usually female hyenas show dominance over male hyenas. Again, it is not about sex status but just body size.

    In this movie clip, it is a funny scenario when a boy tricks a hyena by using a dead tree log over his head in order to appear of being taller, so the hyena won't attack him. But the hyena becomes suspicious about how the boy was shorter before and suddenly was taller, and will follow him wherever he goes just in case becomes shorter again. The movie is The Gods Must Be Crazy.

     
  22. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    777
    My bold.
    ''Nature''
    The Alpha male wolf is the strongest.
    The Pope is physically the strongest male in the catholic church?
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,194
    Well, that exists. But male bonobos are just pretty much ignored when it comes to group decisions. For example, when the males want to move the group to another location, they get down out of the trees, start moving, shake branches etc. Nothing happens until the females want to move. They are in charge.
    Nope. When a male bonobo gets aggressive and tries to "take the lead" on sex, the females attack him and drive him off. Per the primatologist that studied a bonobo group, "many females around her collaboratively chase and attack and even bite that male severely. And then that male usually flees while screaming." Their natural instinct is for the females to lead the group, and decide when sex is OK.
     

Share This Page