Not directed at yourself but life is a continuum ie it started and has run continuous ever since
True, although the issue we're dealing with here isn't really "life"; it's personhood.
Incorrect (here)
The problem is that misogyny is an outwardly-projected attitude. If you hate women, I guess that's fine, hypothetically - just as long as you don't ever interact with any women or impact on their lives in any way.
Well, the word is used so loosely. If we are using it to slander religious groups, then let's at least give them the privilege of actually being misogynists, whatever meaning that word might have in the context of this thread.
The OP simply questions why men dominate positions of authority within religious followings, equating it with misogyny. Does a male dominated organization necessarily mean it is based on a hatred of women?
Not necessarily. I guess that's why the opening poster asked the question? If not misogyny, then why the restriction to male clergy? Have you an alternative explanation?
Yes, men in traditional religious organizations have been the recognized authorities. Does that necessarily imply a hatred of women?
To me it implies a probable desire on the part of the men to exclude women from positions of power within the religious organisations. The underlying motives for that would not necessarily have to be misogynistic, although clearly they are discriminatory.
I agree--not hateful. Now, what about the women who choose to be part of said organizations? Are they knowingly choosing their role in the power structure? I understand that certain religious practices are required in some countries, and I believe we both would agree that participation should be a choice, but what of those in the West where people do have a choice?
When those power structures were set up, women typically had no real say. They were, in effect, forced to participate in the religious organisations according to the rules dictated by the patriarchy. That is still the case in some countries, as you say.
In practice, the social pressure on girls and women to participate in established religions that do not allow women to play an equal role in leadership can be significant enough that the notion of a free choice disappears, even in the supposedly permissive "West". Western women indoctrinated into religions that oppress them do, in some cases, take the brave step of opting out of the system they were brought up in. Some of those women join other, less oppressive, religious communities. Others give up on religion and adopt secular practices.
I would argue the choice exists regardless of the social pressure; otherwise, we would need assume women are too weak to make a choice.
I suppose you think you're strong and free to make your own choices, free from social pressures and expectations. Maybe you ought to reflect on whether that's true for you. If not, perhaps it's not as easy for women as you make out, either. I assume you don't regard yourself as weak and unable to choose.
Sorry, you've lost me. What are you talking about?
There is always a choice. Women simply have less choice than men when it comes to leadership positions in many religions.
Granted, most religions were formed under the guidance of men, but nothing stops women from forming their own religious practice. It is, more so now than ever, a choice.
Okay, I would like to shave my hair, but am concerned about the reaction of coworkers. Is that what you are talking about? Whether I choose to cut my hair or conform to the expectations of my coworkers, I'm still making a choice.
In Western culture, you would need be living in a cave not to be exposed to new ideas.
You still don't see the problem with sexism and segregation.
Right, and they are doing that more and more often. Good to see the old misogynist religions failing - but they are still misogynist.