Article on Unhappy Women in Patriarchal Churches

[Soldier of the One]

Hi all,

I thought you might find this article (plus book) interesting. It basically deals with the claim that patriarchal churches are actually chasing away more women (contrary to the claim of religious conservatives/fundamentalists that religion is becoming increasingly feminized) because women cannot find their own voice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Enjoy!

[Hane]

Thanks so much for this! I've always thought that the male-only clergy of my former church (Roman Catholic) constituted a massive waste of talent.

[Soldier of the One]

Thanks so much for this! I've always thought that the male-only clergy of my former church (Roman Catholic) constituted a massive waste of talent.

:lol:

Although the accuracy of the research done is contested, it does fly in the face of Doug's claim/obsession that men are leaving the Church and that religion has become feminized in the face of Teh Ebil Feminism. Apparently, not. And I think that's an important argument to be making.

[StacyW]

It's good to see that among women, Obama is so far ahead of the remaining Republicans. And maybe I'll join a patriarchal church just so I can quit in a huff.

[Fluffy-Boo]

that religion is becoming increasingly feminized) because women cannot find their own voice.

Here's the thing I don't get:

The churches are patriarchal because the church writings are patriarchal. This is as true of the Old and New Tesament as it is of the Quran and Hadith.

The three main monotheistic religions are entirely patriarchal, so I'm always confused when women leave one of branch or sect of a religion and start their own within the context of that religion.

Why not admit to ourselves that it is the religion itself, not just the church institutions, that supports the misogyny? Why bother skirting around from sect to sect searching for something that isn't inherently or even conceivably supported through the actual religious texts?

This is embarrassing enough because Christianity is primarily a feminine religion. It's main constituents are women, and this becomes increasingly true as centuries pass. In fact, the quiverfull/patriarchal movements are militantly supported by women; primarily housewives who are desperately seeking relevance in a culture that is rapidly moving away from child-rearing and the home front.

It's the books that are the problem. And the people who wrote them...and the cultural context in which they were written. They don't match up with modern values.

They really should be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to be consistent with what they ultimately want. I don't mind religion in that it does build viable communities, but there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim feminism. It's a modern construct.

[Soldier of the One]

Here's the thing I don't get:

The churches are patriarchal because the church writings are patriarchal. This is as true of the Old and New Tesament as it is of the Quran and Hadith.

The three main monotheistic religions are entirely patriarchal, so I'm always confused when women leave one of branch or sect of a religion and start their own within the context of that religion.

Why not admit to ourselves that it is the religion itself, not just the church institutions, that supports the misogyny? Why bother skirting around from sect to sect searching for something that isn't inherently or even conceivably supported through the actual religious texts?

This is embarrassing enough because Christianity is primarily a feminine religion. It's main constituents are women, and this becomes increasingly true as centuries pass. In fact, the quiverfull/patriarchal movements are militantly supported by women; primarily housewives who are desperately seeking relevance in a culture that is rapidly moving away from child-rearing and the home front.

It's the books that are the problem. And the people who wrote them...and the cultural context in which they were written. They don't match up with modern values.

They really should be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to be consistent with what they ultimately want. I don't mind religion in that it does build viable communities, but there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim feminism. It's a modern construct.

Hi Fluffy Boo,

I don't want to ignore your question because it is a valid and intelligent one. But it is also going to merit a really long-winded answer :)

The Cliff Notes version of that answer would probably go as follows:

- Yes, most religions (and cultures, even secular ones) were/are patriarchal

- Ideally, if one is not vested in the transmission of tradition of said culture/religion, it would be desirable to start again

- However, people do feel that the baby should stay in the proverbial bath, for all sorts of reasons: cultural, theological, nostalgic, political

- This is not to say that I do not taken women's oppression and patriarchy seriously, but it does mean that 99% of human culture/religion (which is patriarchal in origin) finds itself in a double bind. If we follow the baby = bathwater route, we might as well throw out 99% of human culture

- I am not sure whether I agree with the assessment that the Abrahamic faiths are 'entirely patriarchal'. Every tradition has its subversive and even feminist elements. There are plenty of female leaders and prophets to be found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, even if it isn't normative or common.

- Define 'modern values'. Are 'modern values' in and of themselves intrinsically worthy?

- As a feminist person of faith, I find a lot of empowerment in the very same books that disempower me as well. It's a subtle and double-edged sword, this religion business. Yet, warts and all, I love my egalitarian religion, be it 'modern construct' or finding the 'authentic prophetic voice of universal human dignity' or not :)

Hope that helps!

STO

edited coz I couldn't spell 'sword', apparently.

[Fluffy-Boo]

- However, people do feel that the baby should stay in the proverbial bath, for all sorts of reasons: cultural, theological, nostalgic, political

- This is not to say that I do not taken women's oppression and patriarchy seriously, but it does mean that 99% of human culture/religion (which is patriarchal in origin) finds itself in a double bind. If we follow the baby = bathwater route, we might as well throw out 99% of human culture

I (and in sadness) completely have to agree with you here. I suppose it's easier to say that the religious texts are the problem than it is to say that humanity itself is the real problem. If it were only the first, then we might actually forge a solution some day.

- Define 'modern values'. Are 'modern values' in and of themselves intrinsically worthy?

I'm going to throw terms like "individualism" and "moral relativism" into the mix. They seem to be very valued by today's culture. And in some ways they can be useful. Individualism allows the true Nietzschean superman to pursue avenues that are not afforded by the collective. And moral relativism has allowed enough open-mindedness that we are not stoning people in the streets for their racial and sexual practices. We have defeated slavery in the U.S.--I do consider that a huge win.

However, both of these philosophies also impede the stability of society, which begs the question: Why are bad policies/religions still better for the procreation and stability of a society than no policy at all?

Every tradition has its subversive and even feminist elements.

Agreed, as well. Feminism is, after all, quite innate. It doesn't always win, but it certainly can't be annihilated.

I am genuinely happy that you can reconcile your values and faith into one worldview. The thing that seems eerily undeniable in the case of the modern woman, is that so much of our ability to practice religion according to our own values has been fought for by the field of secular humanists, not "people of the cloth" so to speak.

[Austin]

I'm actually becoming more and more comfortable with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't see much value in these particular "babies". I realize that others feel differently, but I can't reconcile the amount of horror and oppression that these religions have wrought. To me, these babies' hands are dripping with blood.

This is my personal opinion and respect that others feel differently.

[Fluffy-Boo]

I'm actually becoming more and more comfortable with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't see much value in these particular "babies". I realize that others feel differently, but I can't reconcile the amount of horror and oppression that these religions have wrought. To me, these babies' hands are dripping with blood.

The problem that authors such as Craig A. James have pointed out is that when the "baby" gets thrown out with the bathwater, people stop having babies.

The trick is to cut through the dangerous aspects of religion while still preserving the "hope factor" that fuels communities and procreation. So far, this has posed an insurmountable challenge.

It's a very frightening reality that atheists and even agnostics exhibit lower birthrates and higher degrees of isolation and depression than their religious counterparts.

Religion seems to preserve the human psyche. Even if it is psychologically or physically harmful faith, it bolsters the frail psyche. Some individuals are psychologically stronger and can deal with uncertainty better. But historically, civilization does not survive well in a culture of open-mindedness. People will kill each other over the smallest theological subtleties just to preserve unity and strength. Lukewarm cultures become prey for fanatics, because the lukewarm individuals simply won't fight back.

I don't think this baby is going anywhere.

[aelar]

These sorts of issues, the history of oppression, the embedded patriarchy, the irrelevance of large portions of these religions and their texts and customs to modern life and modern values, but also the problem of finding reason to hope and a sense of significance in our lives, these are all part of why one of my passions and hobbies and art, is the development of my own personal religion. (Not in the Scientology 'let me make a religion to sell the masses' sense though; I think everyone should have their own religion.)

It seems really obvious to me that many/most of the benefits of traditional religions can be achieved by consciously creating a religion for yourself that includes those benefits: moral codes, comforting ritual, inspiring texts, etc. No outdated or oppressive cultural remnants required. Throw out that baby and bathwater too, birth your own.

[Soldier of the One]

I'm currently reading a book by Alain de Botton called 'Religion for Atheists' - some of you might find it interesting: a lot of the arguments here are arguments he makes too.

I think both people of faith and secular people have been part of social advancement. The Abolitionist movement was largely carried by people of faith, I think.

I do understand the baby-out-with-bathwater argument even if I choose to live my life differently. Within my own faith tradition, I am finding that I am having less and less tolerance for sexism, racism and homophobia. Yes, it's a struggle and yes, there's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance involved. But the benefits of faith/community outweigh their detriments to me personally :)

[fluttershies]

These sorts of issues, the history of oppression, the embedded patriarchy, the irrelevance of large portions of these religions and their texts and customs to modern life and modern values, but also the problem of finding reason to hope and a sense of significance in our lives, these are all part of why one of my passions and hobbies and art, is the development of my own personal religion. (Not in the Scientology 'let me make a religion to sell the masses' sense though; I think everyone should have their own religion.)

It seems really obvious to me that many/most of the benefits of traditional religions can be achieved by consciously creating a religion for yourself that includes those benefits: moral codes, comforting ritual, inspiring texts, etc. No outdated or oppressive cultural remnants required. Throw out that baby and bathwater too, birth your own.

But how can a purely personal/individual religion have the community aspect that many people of faith find so important? In any case, how my faith's history (good and bad) have shaped it is really important to me, and starting from scratch would get rid of all that.

[AnnieC 305]

I'm actually becoming more and more comfortable with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't see much value in these particular "babies". I realize that others feel differently, but I can't reconcile the amount of horror and oppression that these religions have wrought. To me, these babies' hands are dripping with blood.

This is my personal opinion and respect that others feel differently.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonab ... -religion/

Make a cup of tea before you click that link. It's a huuuuge graphic.

[MamaJunebug]

Haven't read this thread in its entirely (very early in the day) but I will. Meanwhile, FWIW, I'm one of the women who belongs to a church that's on the patriarchal continuum.

My $0.02 follows, and trust me, is entirely optional reading. ;)

The comments in this thread about the Holy Books of the Big 3 remind me that Lewis Wells, blogging at http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.co ... hrist.html, sums up in his own faith-life where I have arrived in mine:

I believe that there's a merciful God who sent Jesus as the only mediator for us. No other pastor, priest, president nor elder needed. My fate after death relies on Jesus alone, not Jesus plus remaining quiet in church, not Jesus plus my good deeds, not even Jesus plus subscribing down-the-line to every single point of Lutheran theology. Jesus alone. Everything else is a non-essential.

I believe God knows all our hearts and deals with each of us appropriately when we die. Until i die, my job's to serve my fellow humans.

And so, I have - after a dozen years of being a spiritual hermit - recommenced attending church, because faith in Christ involves gathering with other believers. It's part of our service to each other. Were I to leave because pastor has wrong ideas about some non-essentials, I would abandon those others in the pews. Do not want.

To date, pastor has only mentioned his non-essential ideas a very small fraction of the time. Should that fraction grow, yes, I'll talk with him. I won't change his mind, but he'll know that at least one person in the pews isn't noddng in agreement. Also, I won't leave.

Meanwhile, like some of the women the article references, I do volunteer, but in a very limited way. I offered my services as an unpaid consultant - based on my successful, first career - and my skill set wasn't seen as a match for the congregation's needs. Regrettable? Yes, but for the congregation's welfare, not my own. The decision-makers spoke, and the problem wasn't the idea of a woman in leadership, since a woman board member spoke loudest against me. it was lack of chemistry. It happens.

So there you go, my personal experience, an egg within an egg within an egg. Nothing much cerebral to add at this point but the experience/present situation of an older woman in a nominally patriarchal church. Yes, the Lutheran Church-Mo. Synod prohibits women from the pastorate but it also teaches that Jesus is the main thing, indeed the only essential thing, about our faith. That teaching frees a person to think. Love it.

[Hane]

I have a good friend who is a devoted Catholic--in fact, she's the one who invited me to attend a Latin Mass with her. She's wanted to participate at Mass in her own parish as a lector (lay Scripture reader), and wonders why Father hasn't taken her up on it. My guess is that Father knows she's a divorcee and has been living with her now-boyfriend for some twenty years.

Meanwhile, one of the pillars of my former parish is infamous for having gotten his teenaged son a fake ID so the lad could buy booze.

[Soldier of the One]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonab ... -religion/

Make a cup of tea before you click that link. It's a huuuuge graphic.

Seen that. Polemical and a bit unfair in places but still chilling and the general point stands :)

[Soldier of the One]

Haven't read this thread in its entirely (very early in the day) but I will. Meanwhile, FWIW, I'm one of the women who belongs to a church that's on the patriarchal continuum.

My $0.02 follows, and trust me, is entirely optional reading. ;)

The comments in this thread about the Holy Books of the Big 3 remind me that Lewis Wells, blogging at http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.co ... hrist.html, sums up in his own faith-life where I have arrived in mine:

I believe that there's a merciful God who sent Jesus as the only mediator for us. No other pastor, priest, president nor elder needed. My fate after death relies on Jesus alone, not Jesus plus remaining quiet in church, not Jesus plus my good deeds, not even Jesus plus subscribing down-the-line to every single point of Lutheran theology. Jesus alone. Everything else is a non-essential.

I believe God knows all our hearts and deals with each of us appropriately when we die. Until i die, my job's to serve my fellow humans.

And so, I have - after a dozen years of being a spiritual hermit - recommenced attending church, because faith in Christ involves gathering with other believers. It's part of our service to each other. Were I to leave because pastor has wrong ideas about some non-essentials, I would abandon those others in the pews. Do not want.

To date, pastor has only mentioned his non-essential ideas a very small fraction of the time. Should that fraction grow, yes, I'll talk with him. I won't change his mind, but he'll know that at least one person in the pews isn't noddng in agreement. Also, I won't leave.

Meanwhile, like some of the women the article references, I do volunteer, but in a very limited way. I offered my services as an unpaid consultant - based on my successful, first career - and my skill set wasn't seen as a match for the congregation's needs. Regrettable? Yes, but for the congregation's welfare, not my own. The decision-makers spoke, and the problem wasn't the idea of a woman in leadership, since a woman board member spoke loudest against me. it was lack of chemistry. It happens.

So there you go, my personal experience, an egg within an egg within an egg. Nothing much cerebral to add at this point but the experience/present situation of an older woman in a nominally patriarchal church. Yes, the Lutheran Church-Mo. Synod prohibits women from the pastorate but it also teaches that Jesus is the main thing, indeed the only essential thing, about our faith. That teaching frees a person to think. Love it.

MamaJuneBug, that's interesting. So do you consider yourself an egalitarian who submits to a mildly non-egalitarian religious setting because of community and theological integrity? A.k.a. would you yourself like to see women in the pastorate?

I see what you mean but for me, my theology is part and parcel of my social views. For me it isn't 'just God' and the rest are extras. For me, gender and sexual equality, social egalitarianism, solidarity and human rights are part and parcel of Divine Revelation and the voice of our Prophets. Is this at tension with some of the more patriarchal tendencies of Judaism? Absolutely. But that tension exists whether I am part of it or not. That tension has existed since the times of Abraham and Sarah, Moses and Miriam, Deborah and Barak, Hoseah and Ezekiel. Modern society has just given me the tools to articulate and develop what *I* consider to be the Divine Will - a society that arches towards Redemption and full inclusion of all its members.

Yes, I read and interpret the Divine Will (as expressed through our textual tradition) through my own agenda. But don't we all? Non-egalitarian or patriarchal Judaism also read those texts and those processes of religious jurisprudence through their own agenda. To each their own. I'd just want to belong to a community that espouses those values because those values are intrinsic to my theology.

All the best! :)

[Seven Severn]

Religion seems to preserve the human psyche. Even if it is psychologically or physically harmful faith, it bolsters the frail psyche.

But is it actually religious faith or is it just having a sense of community? I have nothing to back this up, but I think it's the latter - having a sense of belonging that comes from regularly getting together with a friendly group of like-minded people. This doesn't have to come from a house of worship. A person can get this from their work or being actively involved in their local arts community or preservation society or community choir or veterans group or recycling initiative or...you get the picture. As long as the group meets regularly strong ties can be developed which in turn give an individual a sense of support. Religion doesn't have to play a part. Again, I have nothing to back this up.

[Soldier of the One]

But is it actually religious faith or is it just having a sense of community? I have nothing to back this up, but I think it's the latter - having a sense of belonging that comes from regularly getting together with a friendly group of like-minded people. This doesn't have to come from a house of worship. A person can get this from their work or being actively involved in their local arts community or preservation society or community choir or veterans group or recycling initiative or...you get the picture. As long as the group meets regularly strong ties can be developed which in turn give an individual a sense of support. Religion doesn't have to play a part. Again, I have nothing to back this up.

I think it's both: community and faith have definite overlaps but are not necessarily the same thing. There are 'believers' who believe alone and people who love community but don't believe in God or gods or whatever, yet find incredibly meaning and support in community.

I also think some people are 'wired' to be religious while others are not. This is one of many reasons why I don't actually care whether someone believes or doesn't believe. I don't necessarily thing that faith is for everyone or helpful to everyone. Seen more than my share of well-balanced, loving, decent and happy atheists to attest to that. And seen an equal number of religious folk with the same descriptors.

[Austin]

The problem that authors such as Craig A. James have pointed out is that when the "baby" gets thrown out with the bathwater, people stop having babies.

The trick is to cut through the dangerous aspects of religion while still preserving the "hope factor" that fuels communities and procreation. So far, this has posed an insurmountable challenge.

It's a very frightening reality that atheists and even agnostics exhibit lower birthrates and higher degrees of isolation and depression than their religious counterparts.

Religion seems to preserve the human psyche. Even if it is psychologically or physically harmful faith, it bolsters the frail psyche. Some individuals are psychologically stronger and can deal with uncertainty better. But historically, civilization does not survive well in a culture of open-mindedness. People will kill each other over the smallest theological subtleties just to preserve unity and strength. Lukewarm cultures become prey for fanatics, because the lukewarm individuals simply won't fight back.

I don't think this baby is going anywhere.

I'm not really interested in "cutting through the dangerous aspects of religion while still preserving the 'hope factor' that fuels communites and procreation". Human beings were procreating long before we had the joy of the Abrahamic religions visited upon us.

Educated people, in general, tend to have fewer children. I really don't believe it's because they're depressed or isolated :roll: The rest of your post is just a bunch of blah, blah, blah stereotypes of agnostics and atheists. Do those of us who identify that way on FJ seem "lukewarm" to you?

Feel free to keep your "baby" if you like; mine has already gone through the window.

[Soldier of the One]

I'm not really interested in "cutting through the dangerous aspects of religion while still preserving the 'hope factor' that fuels communites and procreation". Human beings were procreating long before we had the joy of the Abrahamic religions visited upon us.

Educated people, in general, tend to have fewer children. I really don't believe it's because they're depressed or isolated :roll: The rest of your post is just a bunch of blah, blah, blah stereotypes of agnostics and atheists. Do those of us who identify that way on FJ seem "lukewarm" to you?

Feel free to keep your "baby" if you like; mine has already gone through the window.

Austin, I'd really be curious what you'd make of Alain de Botton's book 'Religion for Atheists', which he has written from an atheist perspective. I've just started reading it but it lends some interesting insights into the baby & bathwater debate. So far, the book strikes me just as solid secular humanism, if anything.

[Fluffy-Boo]

I'm not really interested in "cutting through the dangerous aspects of religion while still preserving the 'hope factor' that fuels communites and procreation". Human beings were procreating long before we had the joy of the Abrahamic religions visited upon us.

Educated people, in general, tend to have fewer children. I really don't believe it's because they're depressed or isolated :roll: The rest of your post is just a bunch of blah, blah, blah stereotypes of agnostics and atheists. Do those of us who identify that way on FJ seem "lukewarm" to you?

Feel free to keep your "baby" if you like; mine has already gone through the window.

Ouch. Well, first of all, we have zero evidence of any ancient society being atheists. They all believed in some form of God whether it be animated matter, or a pantheon of Gods. Yes people were breeding, sometimes in massive amounts prior to the Abrahamic faith. These were all religious societies. Monotheism was rare at the time. Atheism is a more modern "religion", so to speak, and it does produce lower birth rates regardless of education level. Not all atheists are educated, nor are all religious people.

Countries with threatened demographics also shower higher levels of depression. This may be due to several contributing factors.

These are not my opinions, these are the statistics. In fact, many stereotypes exist because of statistics.

I have no problem with atheism--like all religions, it rests on non-falsifiable claims. But as ATHEISTS like Craig A. James have pointed out, their societies tend to be less stable when it comes to births and replacements. This is a problem for atheists. Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged this in his own witty way: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5721 ... s-faithful.

It would appear that from an evolutionary perspective, religion actually protects the genetic survival of the species. THIS IS MY POINT. It is a point based on scientific premise and has no personal relevance to any atheists on FJ. I haven't a clue what the atheists on FJ are like. The demographics of FJ aren't relevant to the argument at hand.

[Austin]

So is your "point" that societies will weaken and become unstable without religion to bind people together in a shared delusion (not referring to a particular one)? Where has that been the case in the modern world?

BTW, I am not an atheist. I eschew excessive certitude in all its forms.

[Austin]

The data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life†that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.

From The Journal of Religion and Society - Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/7 ... 73_web.pdf

[Lainey]

BTW, I am not an atheist. I eschew excessive certitude in all its forms.

You would be hard-pressed to find an atheist who asserts with certainty that a god does not exist (yes, I'm sure there are some). And if you don't believe in a god (note that that is NOT the same as believing that there isn't a god), I've got some bad news for you...

And on another note, because I'm in my bitchy place today: Can we all stop pretending Lewis is just some totally cool poster here on FJ? He's a creep and a weirdo with rants all over the goddamned internet about how wronged he was by his ex girlfriend and her daddy. Ugh.