Well most people here just starting by using religion as an excuse

(Which ftr is wrong on many levels)

But I don't want to turn this into a religion debate

But throughout history, hasn't the establishment of religion or perhaps most/many religions uniquely been on the opposite side of women ... At least in a general sense? Many Religions, especially Christianity and Islam seem to uniquely have an issue with women's empowerment/rights and has been slower to evolve than society as a whole. To me, many Religions, regardless of faith, tradition or tenets has historically sought to keep women as second class citizens, at best ... I think this might come from the carry-over of the social values in which they may have been founded.

 

I'm not making this a religion thread either, but if the topic is Crimes against Women and Equality ... To me Religion is more than just an elephant in the room ... Perhaps my scope is limited. I believe I remember reading about similar issues with women in Hinduism. I welcome other thoughts ... This is primarily regarding religions spanning the past centuries or into antiquity also ... I'm not necessarily saying every church or modern religion is committing this.

I wont argu abot christinty and othre conventinal abrhamc religins; from waht I kno, evn if the staetments wernt desgned to be takn that way, thyre aer quite fw in thier texts taht seem to denoet women as inferor. They haev qite lot of focus on sex an gendre and waht each oen shold and shouldnt do. Othrr religion thugh, may or arent so implcit on gendr roels and therfore especily wuoldnt imply or asign inferior dutis or status for women. I onl know so mich about othr religons but Im jus going to make th case taht if my religin is fairly equl abuot gender tahn thyre aer or were othres too; in noen of our texts is ther anywher statin taht women shuold do or be this whiel men shuld be taht, mosly becuse lot of them deal with th gods wher gendre is not as importnt. Womn genrly arent depicted as leders or wariors in stories but taht wuold probaly be becuse the fact taht women aer lesss violent and physicly not as stron as men so therfore wont typiclly be fuond in thos posts in vry vioelnt society - ther are excptions thuogh, liek Queen Medb and othre famuos warior-queens, and thy aernt treatd in a negtive light jus becuse of thier gender, only if hty break honour liek men, besids taht women aer shown havin honourd positins liek bards an poets evn if not specificlly a priest. Ther isnt any religous rules speking aginst them in any of it

 

Oen gendre bein prefered ovre the other then isnt implied in mch of any storis at all - other socil tradition in a particulr comunity, soem of it not oficily tied to th religon an soem of it bein interpreted and justifued by particuluar part in a story, sems waht cause any gnder imbalnce, not the religon itslf. For exmple, a certin rationale of why women aer suporior to men indpendent of religon, besids usin any instnce inthe Cycles taht place their importnce above men to tru to justify it divinly, can lead to a matriarchl comunity, whiel a rationale of why men are suprior to women, usin pieces of storis to justify it frm the Cycles, can lead to patriarchl socity, but the atitude is primarly driven by th non-religius rationael, becuse the justifictions such comunities ues frm a divine sens aer extremly weak and im prety sure thy know it - such as wth a patriarchl atitude, theyll fixaet on jus oen instance whn Nuada, whn angry, jus states, "Spare me thy women's talk," or whn Cúchulainn stats taht a man wuold nevre have beatn him whn he was spelbound aftre he gets flogged by Áes women whn he cuoldnt move, etc., whiel matriarchl will try taek the fact taht th first tru deity to coem into existenc was feminine adn multipel statments by women or femal deitis taht may denote masculine thuoght as simpl and brustish, etc. Both of thm sem to ignoer instnces wher thier favuored gendre is put down in liek mannres, so what I am sayin, othre socil factors seem, at least in caes of my religon, to be moer importnt in maintining and favuorin gendre inquality, and Im suer thyre are/were othre religons liek it where othre traditions or thuoght proceses aer more importnt.

As far as Christianity goes, I think Jesus was all about equality, and on several occasions showed respect for the female gender.  A few examples.  

As far as Christianity goes, I think Jesus was all about equality, and on several occasions showed respect for the female gender.  A few examples.  

concurred, however, Jesus wasn't a Christian, especially as defined after the Catholic Church did away with Gnostic believers in the 3rd-6th centuries.

I think Jesus would be whipping some of THESE "money changers" out of his temple, were he to return today.

Very interesting Taltos, can I ask, what is your religion/heritage/culture?

I agree with both Hallia and Tsuk!  Hallia I agree that Jesus was definitely an equalist(? my made up word), he loved male and female alike equally.  I agree with Tsuk that Jesus was not a Christian, and his teachings, seperated from the rest of the bible, were of love, unity, equality, non-judgement, tolerance, helping thy neighbor and thy family, just straight up good stuff, no this one is better than this one...

No, he wasn't a Christian, but he is what Christianty is supposed to be based off of, which is why I mentioned the changes he really brought in.  

On 13/03/2013 at 5:27 PM, Gudrean said:

-

On 13/03/2013 at 5:31 PM, Gudrean said:

I agree with both Hallia and Tsuk!  Hallia I agree that Jesus was definitely an equalist(? my made up word), he loved male and female alike equally.  I agree with Tsuk that Jesus was not a Christian, and his teachings, seperated from the rest of the bible, were of love, unity, equality, non-judgement, tolerance, helping thy neighbor and thy family, just straight up good stuff, no this one is better than this one...

I dont kno waht sort of thngs Jesus taugh but Il just asuem thats what he taught so liekly as not if chrisitnty was jus basd on any recrdings of his words, wuold hav probaly have beter record in regrds to gendre equlity. But takn with all th othre texts, soem of which I gues are contradictry but apprntly get mor precedence, I wuold say the religon itslf then promots an inderior view of women, thogh sems there aer eforts now among more progresive gruops to interpert such phrases taht condone taht diferently and such to maek it seem moer equl.

I am interested though Tal, in your community, are women treated the same for the most part as men? Any interesting differences?

I am interested though Tal, in your community, are women treated the same for the most part as men? Any interesting differences?

I 2nd that!!! being of Irish descent as well, I would love to hear more of your culture.

well i dont know about the rest of the world, but in the little part of the world (AKA the middle east) things have been improving now, but there is "still miles to go", an example that i remember is saudi arabia still doesnt allow women to have a driving licence, and tbh i had this discussion in class with a couple of girls, it did get rather heated cuz of many reasons one that i still remember was that i asked them if they wanted to be treated equally or different (in a good way ofcource)..

 

(i should explain, here women get seperate lines in banks, a different section in the hospital/government buildings)    

 

Lol, one of the main reasons im not a fan of debating(or discussing) is cuz i expect people to see if from a neutral pov, which most dont......

Israel is in the Middle East and I was there recently. Muslim women drive and walk about unaccompanied.

One thing I do remember from back home that I don't see as much here in California (I'm from South Carolina) is actually that I was treated in public with more respect!  Men are taught back home to respect 'ladies' and most men would call women they didn't know 'ma'am.'

I found this to be true when I was in Texas.

 

 

well i dont know about the rest of the world, but in the little part of the world (AKA the middle east) things have been improving now, but there is "still miles to go", an example that i remember is saudi arabia still doesnt allow women to have a driving licence, and tbh i had this discussion in class with a couple of girls, it did get rather heated cuz of many reasons one that i still remember was that i asked them if they wanted to be treated equally or different (in a good way ofcource)..

 

(i should explain, here women get seperate lines in banks, a different section in the hospital/government buildings)

 

Lol, one of the main reasons im not a fan of debating(or discussing) is cuz i expect people to see if from a neutral pov, which most dont......

Israel is in the Middle East and I was there recently. Muslim women drive and walk about unaccompanied.

See the bolded country up and to be more specific the gulf countries (or the oil rich ones), and the diffrences in that part of the middle east (israel, jordan, etc) is in some cases the really really diffrent.

No, he wasn't a Christian, but he is what Christianty is supposed to be based off of, which is why I mentioned the changes he really brought in.  

Unfortunately, Christianity is NOT based on the teachings of Jesus. The Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations (but not all) actually downplay

the gospels, and pay an inordinate amount of attention to the epistles of Paul. There were originally 4 sects of Christianity: Paulian (bad word, that :)), Valentinian,

Thomasian, and the Gnostics. The current church, as it stands (except for a few small, resurrected sects) have NEVER even heard of the writtings of these schisms.

Ever heard of the Gospel of Mary?? Thomas?? The hypostasis of the Archons? the Apocrypha of John??

It is Paul who gave us celibate priests, creating a culture of pedophilia, secret liasons, and scandal. It is Paul who gave us women as inferior, unfit to serve as

priests or apostles, despite Mary Magdalen (who was NOT a whore, people). After His resurrection, who did he appear to first?? Mary, an inferior woman, and

the men did not believe. I believe this sets the stage for the entire development of Western Culture, which was guided and controlled (for the most part)

by the Catholic Church for the next 1800 years.

 

Judaism, in its youth, was the same way. Sons inherited, daughters did not. Men were priests, women were not. Prophets existed, prophetesses did not. I will

grant the existence of women leaders in the time of the Judges, but never again after the forming of the nation of Israel (if I am wrong, please inform and give source).

I will, however, grant that the modern Israel bears little resemblance to this, but not the religion. I know of no female rabbis. Correct me, please.

 

Islam, without making an attack as I know many Muslims, both conservative and not, is based upon Judaism and Catholicism, the two preceeding religious cultures.

It takes Original Sin to a new level, embraces the laws of Judaism, the spectacle and priesthood of both, the emphasis of men speaking for God that the church

embraces, and then tries to ignore it's roots. (at least Christians also study the Old Testament) Women are crushed in that culture by Original Sin, the concept of NO

GRACE, the restrictions of old Hebraic law, and then the bashing that Paul gave them (although they ignore his writings).

 

NOTE: not a religious attack, merely speaking from the POV of the issue being discussed. I believe there are good and bad in a religions, that many paths lead to God,

and that bad men can twist any institution in a mockery of itself.

 

Honestly, the issue that this brings up is: WHY ARE NON-WESTERN CULTURES JUST AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE???

I actually have to agree with much of what Tsuk has stated, about the missing gospels, about the church following the ones that worked to the male advantage, mostly from Paul's POV, about Mary being made a whore to lessen the authority and power of women, about the actual "teachings" of Jesus not being followed as "religiously" as the teachings of the apostles, and man I thought I was the only person who knew about the Archons....

I actually have to agree with much of what Tsuk has stated, about the missing gospels, about the church following the ones that worked to the male advantage, mostly from Paul's POV, about Mary being made a whore to lessen the authority and power of women, about the actual "teachings" of Jesus not being followed as "religiously" as the teachings of the apostles, and man I thought I was the only person who knew about the Archons....

Pistis and Sophia, guiding forces of my life.

the Pistis Sophia is a great Gnostic scripture indeed

hehe... let us avoid tossing secret handshakes and hijacking the thread.

yes yes, I will PM you =)

Yes. Please try to keep your discussions to the topic at hand.

yes, ma'am; this lowly Soldier apologizes greatly.

On 13/03/2013 at 9:37 PM, Hallia said:

I am interested though Tal, in your community, are women treated the same for the most part as men? Any interesting differences?-

very interesting, I love to see a culture that grows with the changing times and sees the merrit in "updating" old ideas or rules that no longer fit the lives of it's people!!!

something I want to point out about the scripture Tsuk and I were talking about is that it talks a lot about how women and men were equals in the eyes of Christ and even has conversation excerpts of the men and women arguing, which was quite unheard of in public in those times and heck in these times in some places. I've always had a hard time understanding why women and men were not portrayed as equals in religion, well in some religions. It has always made it hard for me to accept the religion with these inconsistencies. 

 

Here are some facts about women around the world, from dosomething.org, sourced from Amnesty International

1. Women perform 66% of the world’s work, but receive only 11% of the world’s income, and own only 1% of the world’s land.
2. Women head 83% of single-parent families. The number of families nurtured by women alone doubled from 1970 to 1995 (from 5.6 million to 12.2 million).
3. Women account for 55% of all college students, but even when women have equal years of education it does not translate into economic opportunities or political power.
4. Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government. 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.
5. Rape is consciously used as a tool of genocide and weapon of war. Tens of thousands of women and girls have been subjected to rape and other sexual violence since the crisis erupted in Darfur in 2003. There is no evidence of anyone being convicted in Darfur for these atrocities.
6. About 75% of the refugees and internally displaced in the world are women who have lost their families and their homes.

I am curious about how #1 is quantified...... seems like a very hard thing to put into a percentage.

#2 that was because until recently (i believe) it was standard  practise to give children to the mother in cases of divorce, it did not matter how the mother or father where. Famous example the Norway Massacre guy

#3 I would like to ask for proof of that in the USA and Canada (I have heard this repeatedly and have not seen any sign of this, actually have seen evidence to the contrary hiring practices and education admittance)

#4 I would argue that, but that may be based on their criteria of what is a child

#5 Although that is terrible, I watched a documentary or something that said male soldiers who get captured tend to get raped and they have to deny it happened or else their family will abandon them

#6 thats cause the men die during the fighting or are drafted

 

In Canada and the US I don't think there is much reason for women to complain about equality (or lack there-of), while this is a continuing issue here, it is not such a vast difference between male and female that great social movements are needed. My greatest objections to 'women week' is that it seems to strive to take men out of the picture, except where the blame is to be placed upon men.

Howdy Hall

very interesting, I love to see a culture that grows with the changing times and sees the merrit in "updating" old ideas or rules that no longer fit the lives of it's people!!!

I wuold say we baerly chang with the tiems - almos all of uor practices haev been extant for past 1500 or moer years ago, an onl few haev falen into disues, liek the thing about whn women aer alowed to fight, becuse we dont aev anyone to fight to any sucess, though those ruels and traditins stil exist in case society revrts to les secure conditins agin. The decisin abuot prieshood with us was one of few taht changd, for th fact taht it becam realy obvius taht we dont realy have enuogh folowers to be extremly choosy abuot who cn join priesthod whn alredy it is very selectiv withuto addin gender to the mix.