Religious teachings and Women

[Kylark]

Today I was reading a great article about Karma Yoga, nodding in agreement, until I came to this:

A timid man is absolutely unfit for Karma Yoga. He is fit to assist his wife in cleaning utensils in the kitchen in the morning and in washing her clothes in the evening.

Often when I'm reading religious texts, or reading about religion, I'll come across this problem. The text will either ignore women altogether, or only mention them in a disparaging way.

This problem pervades even the oldest and wisest religions on earth.

It bothers me. I find it very jarring and a hindrance to my exploration of different beliefs. I would like to hear other peoples' thoughts on this.

[Tabs]

Originally Posted by Kylark

Today I was reading a great article about Karma Yoga, nodding in agreement, until I came to this:

Often when I'm reading religious texts, or reading about religion, I'll come across this problem. The text will either ignore women altogether, or only mention them in a disparaging way.

This problem pervades even the oldest and wisest religions on earth.

It bothers me. I find it very jarring and a hindrance to my exploration of different beliefs. I would like to hear other peoples' thoughts on this.

I have to agree with you on the point about women and religion. I find that I stop exploration of certain religions the moment I read something disparaging about women. I am aware that most of the texts are written by men but still you can tell what kind of men wrote the scripture.

I hold all religions in high esteem and so I try to read more current literature (stuff written this century by both male or female authors) or I try to go as far back with the text as I can and read the original versions and just use my own filters to decipher the messages.

I have already "lost faith" in two religions because of this issue but I have also developed clearer vision from my experiences and even though I will not go back to those two religions for anything more than quotes or to find deeper meanings in the text by myself, I just can't afford to lose faith in anymore.

Thanks for sharing, I needed to get this one out.

[madgeylou]

yes, the one question my catholic family has never been able to answer to even my partial satisfaction is "how can this church claim to have the straight line to god, when it does not allow 51% of His children to fully participate in the faith?"

i think the reason women are looked down upon in the "great" religions of today is that these religions came to be in patriarchical cultures. paganism, druidism, and other belief systems older than "civilization" tend to not be so bigoted against the ladies.

[Antarananda]

I'm a great fan of Swami Sivananda, whose work you quoted. He was a very old-school type Guru, and remarks such as those are made in the context of the predominant cultural environment (patriarchal Hindu India, in this case). Actually, Hinduism in its original form as Sanatana Dharma accorded women equal power (and in some lineages greater power than men). One of the highest esoteric practices is worship of the Divine Mother as creatrix of the universe, second to none In India, the southern state of Kerala, which gave birth to some of its greatest saints, is a matriarchal society to this day. Unfortunately, chauvinistic males have dominated religion, and excluded women in a display of power (stemming from insecurity and ego!).

The new spirituality which is being ushered into world consciousness shall be shaped by the feminine aspect of the Divine: compassion, sweetness, humility, tolerance, and grace under pressure.

[Tabs]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

The new spirituality which is being ushered into world consciousness shall be shaped by the feminine aspect of the Divine: compassion, sweetness, humility, tolerance, and grace under pressure.

Amen to that.

[Angela]

Sorry, I'm not buying it. To assign qualities to the feminine or masculine aspect of "the divine" only propogates the tendency of religion to subjugate women, and to shame men out of some very desirable values. How prevalent in religion and in society is the teaching that real women should have sweetness and humility and how often has that had the effect of disempowering women in very real ways? How long have boys been taught that sweetness, compassion and humility are 'girly', and their very manhood is in danger if they adopt them? If I were a man, I would be insulted by this line of devotion.

I say -- Fie on any spirituality that subscribes varying treatment depending on gender! Ptooey on some qualities being masculine and others feminine! Keep what helps you grow, and spit the other crap out!

Tabs -- your remark "I can't afford to lose faith" was intriguing. You said that you gained clarity from your experiences, but it sounds like some part of having faith & then losing it cost you dearly, and you're afraid of having to pay again. What exactly did you lose by going through that?
Love,
Angela

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Angela

Sorry, I'm not buying it. To assign qualities to the feminine or masculine aspect of "the divine" only propogates the tendency of religion to subjugate women, and to shame men out of some very desirable values. How prevalent in religion and in society is the teaching that real women should have sweetness and humility and how often has that had the effect of disempowering women in very real ways? How long have boys been taught that sweetness, compassion and humility are 'girly', and their very manhood is in danger if they adopt them? If I were a man, I would be insulted by this line of devotion.

I say -- Fie on any spirituality that subscribes varying treatment depending on gender! Ptooey on some qualities being masculine and others feminine! Keep what helps you grow, and spit the other crap out!

Uhh... there is a concept in Sanatana Dharma called "Ardhanarishwara", which basically means all human beings, regardless of gender, express both masculine (Yang) as well as feminine (Yin) attributes. "Masculine" and "Feminine" are merely metaphorical labels for the universal Yin-Yang forces in all of nature. It's not "crap"; you seem to have missed my point

And oh, some of the most revered saints ever who were biologically male were embodiments of the "feminine" virtues I spoke about, including Jesus Christ, the Buddha and Ramakrishna.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

Uhh... there is a concept in Sanatana Dharma called "Ardhanarishwara", which basically means all human beings, regardless of gender, express both masculine (Yang) as well as feminine (Yin) attributes. "Masculine" and "Feminine" are merely metaphorical labels for the universal Yin-Yang forces in all of nature. It's not "crap"; you seem to have missed my point

And oh, some of the most revered saints ever who were biologically male were embodiments of the "feminine" virtues I spoke about, including Jesus Christ, the Buddha and Ramakrishna.

I understand the concept, alright, and I understand your point. I also reject the concept, heartily and blasphemously. "Masculine" and "feminine" metaphoric labels are harmful ones, was my point.
Such concepts are routinely and systematically abused by religious and political individuals to control and manipulate male and female human beings. "Universal yin-yang forces in all of nature" is a human invention, and an outdated one. Time to throw it out.

Jesus and Buddha were not "embodiments of virtues", they were human beings who lived their lives in accordance with virtues. Why label those virtues as masculine or feminine? What good does that do?

[Tabs]

Originally Posted by Angela

Tabs -- your remark "I can't afford to lose faith" was intriguing. You said that you gained clarity from your experiences, but it sounds like some part of having faith & then losing it cost you dearly, and you're afraid of having to pay again. What exactly did you lose by going through that?
Love,
Angela

Hi Angela, I meant lose faith in any more religious writings because of influence of different interpretations and manipulations of the words. Like I mentioned I have specifically two religions that I question anything or I should say I am suspicious of anything written in the last millennium. I say question everything you read but when I feel that the text is written with some ulterior motives that I am suspicious of.

I have not and will never lose faith in God, the Universe and All, but I believe in freedom to make my own interpretation of information written by those who came before me. This came to be as a result of depiction of women in the writing and this happened when I was a child, I just did not get why I shouldn’t be the same as my male counterparts.

So I do read the books, I have to read between the lines to get to the truth, and I don't believe in blind faith either, but that is another topic. God gave us minds for a reason and make sense of writing myself. I have complete faith in something much bigger than myself and so far this method has been priceless to me.

PS
Losing faith doesn't cost one dearly, it is not making use of it that is expensive and I don't mean money.

Cheers and thanks for asking.

[Angela]

Tabs, it sounds like the very act of poking into spiritual literature and using your own intuition (filters) as a guide has sharpened and clarified your faith; I think you've come out ahead! (made a prophet? )

[Tabs]

Angela, you are too cute , thanks for a good laugh...

Later,

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Angela

I understand the concept, alright, and I understand your point. I also reject the concept, heartily and blasphemously. "Masculine" and "feminine" metaphoric labels are harmful ones, was my point.

I don't see how it is harmful if I recognize that the world, with myself included in it, needs to cultivate more love, patience, compassion and tolerance to shift the present power dynamic towards one which is more peaceful and harmonious. I merely ascribed the label "feminine" to these traits because the original poster's beef was about religion having been historically patriarchal.

Hey, I'm a man and I'm espousing the cause of empowerment of women! A woman can be nurturing in ways a man cannot. All I'm saying is that it's time men learn to embrace those aspects of themselves. It's the macho attitude as exemplified by the likes of George Bush that have embroiled the planet in useless wars time and again.

Such concepts are routinely and systematically abused by religious and political individuals to control and manipulate male and female human beings.

Again, I don't see how celebrating and honoring traits exhibited by women as loving, nurturing, maternal beings can possibly lead to manipulation

"Universal yin-yang forces in all of nature" is a human invention, and an outdated one. Time to throw it out.

Ebb and flow, dynamism and passivity, positive and negative magnetic poles, are all natural phenomena, not human inventions.

Jesus and Buddha were not "embodiments of virtues", they were human beings who lived their lives in accordance with virtues. Why label those virtues as masculine or feminine? What good does that do?

See above.

[Adam Sargant]

Kylark, I think that there are at least two things going on here.

First, these teachings are expressed from within the limitations/filters of the time/culture. That doesn't make such expression acceptable, but it does make them understandable and gives us an in to challenge such expression and seek to define a truth that surpasses such.

Second, they offten stem from a confusion in the use of metaphor. Polarity has often been symbolised through the idea of sexual union, the play of opposites resulting in creation... and indeed there is a sexual energy that corresponds to fundemental energies within creation IMO, the interplay of which has powerful correspondence. But it has stuff all to do with women in the kitchen raising kids, and men out hunting for big hairy animals... masculine and feminine in a spiritual description are limited (limiting) metaphors and should IMO not be confused with real people.

In love and light

Adam

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

I don't see how it is harmful if I recognize that the world, with myself included in it, needs to cultivate more love, patience, compassion and tolerance to shift the present power dynamic towards one which is more peaceful and harmonious. I merely ascribed the label "feminine" to these traits because the original poster's beef was about religion having been historically patriarchal.

Antarananda, by no means did I mean that your declaration of a desire for those virtues was harmful. In fact, I'm here to help you practice patience! What is harmful is ascribing masculine and feminine labels -- that's what gets abused.

Originally Posted by Antarananda

A woman can be nurturing in ways a man cannot.

I don't agree -- except for breast feeding, I wouldn't wish for a man to think that he can't nurture as well as a woman. Look at you, for instance! Mr. Nurture!

again, I don't see how celebrating and honoring traits exhibited by women as loving, nurturing, maternal beings can possibly lead to manipulation

Once again, it's the labels, you see, not celebrating and honoring the traits themselves, that is used for manipulation. For example, girls are trained to be "sweet" (yin) and avoid being combative (yang) even to the point where they find themselves vulnerable to an attacker. Victimizers look for victims who display yin traits; they're looking for easy prey. Another example:
Kylark's "timid man", who is punished and humiliated by being constrained to women's work, which sort of indicates that punishment and humiliation are women's default lot in Karma Yoga, right?! I think both aspects of that, for the man and for the woman, are what stopped Kylark in her tracks, and made her then question the validity of the entire thought system.

Ebb and flow, dynamism and passivity, positive and negative magnetic poles, are all natural phenomena, not human inventions.

These are natural phenomena, yes; referring to them as feminine/masculine or yin/yang is the human invention.

Atarananda, I honor you for your intention to cultivate love, peace, compassion, and patience in the world. I am with you. I hope you can see that it's the labels I reject, not your beautiful values.

Love, "Warrior Woman"

[Michael Chui]

FWIW, Kabbalah (simplistically put: Jewish mysticism) also demarcates a difference between men and women. The notion, as I understand it, is that everyone has a male/female aspect. The male is defined as a giving aspect, whereas the female is defined as a receiving aspect.

If I've understood what I've read correctly, then the principle is the same as that of Yin/Yang. The point is not to have one or the other, but to have an equal balance of both.

I'd also like to suggest the notion that the train of thought was not "Female, thus receptive", but rather "Receptive, thus female." In other words, whatever might have been the cause, at the inception of the philosophy, women were already in this role and the philosophy simply took its cue from the social norm and extrapolated. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that females were subjugated in pre-agrarian societies before the advent of hardcore mythology.

Thus, the notion becomes, "There is much for a woman to learn from a man; and much for a man to learn from a woman." Notice that in the vast majority of personality tests and sorters, there is no real expectation of a gender division.

Perhaps the longest essay I've read on gender stereotypes and sexual archetypes is this one, which I highly recommend:
Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Archetypes

[Angela]

Interesting and amusing article, Michael. Thanks. I didn't know there was a "side for the woman to lie during intercourse" -- the same side as "poison."

This notion that one should have an equal balance of the two dualities, whatever names you give them: I don't buy that, either. Individuals have values and qualities each to their own special proportions; for any discipline to dictate how a person "should" be constituted I find presumptuous, irritating, harmful, and yes: outdated. The stereotypes and expectations that arise from any duality model just aren't condusive to real human advancement. I still say ditch 'em. They don't help.

[Michael Chui]

So what values and qualities would you suggest? Help. Or would that be outdated, too?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So what values and qualities would you suggest? Help. Or would that be outdated, too?

I would like to see the same qualities and values as you, probably: love, compassion, peace, growth, and many others. Please note: I'm not saying those values and qualities are outdated. I'm saying the stereotypical notions and prescriptions of duality are outdated. Love and peace -- they're always in style!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

I would like to see the same qualities and values as you, probably: love, compassion, peace, growth, and many others. Please note: I'm not saying those values and qualities are outdated. I'm saying the stereotypical notions and prescriptions of duality are outdated. Love and peace -- they're always in style!

They said the same thing about all that other stuff, too. Are you certain your list has no dualities in it? Or is it just dualities in which you want both sides of the line that you think are outdated?

Stereotypes are wrong. That's why they're stereotypes. A stereotype is an widespread overgeneralization. Dualities are not always wrong. They are frequently simplifications, but this does not mean they are wrong.

It's a nice list, but I'm tempted to ask you to define each of those terms.