Thursday, June 29, 2006

Women and Religion

Some people think that feminism has done its job, that women are "equal" and can do anything they like and should stop their whining, and that all feminists do now is sit around arguing about the political correctness of blowjobs.

To those people I say, you should be paying closer attention.

I could give you statistics about the gender gap in wages. I could write about how sexual harrassment is still a fact of life for most women. I could write oodles about reproductive rights and how they are being eroded in America today. I could write about how the government seems okay with letting women die, whether it's from cervical cancer or complications from pregnancy. Or how women of child-bearing age are being told to view themselves as "pre-pregnant": in other words, baby-making machines.

But I've written about all of that before, and many other people are doing an excellent job of keeping up with it all.

I'd like to bring it back to the basics again here. Because yesterday I saw this:
If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for “pool.” I’d like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women’s suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.

That was written by a woman. A woman whose website makes it very clear that she is devoted to her religion, or at least her interpretation of what that religion is.

And so now I suppose I must talk about religion. Clare writes:
A widely held belief (even in the femosphere) is that religious women are somehow downtrodden, serving and suffering under a patriarchal rule. Whilst this may be the case for some women, it is not the case for all, and even if it is the case, it may also be their choice to submit to these rules.

It's pretty obvious by now that I am not religious, and although I try, I often have serious difficulties respecting the religion of others. Because in many cases, those religions teach that everything about me is abhorrent. And how can I respect someone who feels that way about me?

I do not think it is right for feminists to disparage the choices of other women. The whole point is supposed to be choice. So I can respect the choice of a woman who decides to stay home and take care of her children, even if I don't understand it and wouldn't choose it for myself. I can respect the choice of a woman who chooses to observe a religion and make her own choices on the basis of that religion.

What I cannot and will not respect is when women decide that it is their choice to take away the choices of other women.

Whether it is abortion or voting rights, there are people out there who want to make sure that women have sub-human status in society. And some of those people are women. I can't understand it, and I can't ignore it. These arguments regarding women's subhumanity are often based on religious arguments, and are therefore supposed to be given more respect.

Well, if we're supposed to respect religion, shouldn't we be respecting ALL religions? How about Islam? Not so widely respected in America today, what with the Modern Crusades... How about Buddhism? Buddhism doesn't say anything about women serving men. No, this is not about respect for religion. This is about one mainstream religion (Protestant Christianity, I suppose) trying to make a case for theocracy. People use it as a flag to wave ("family values!" "god-fearing"! etc.) to give their sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic beliefs some weight.

Is religion bad for women? In some cases, the answer is yes. But it certainly doesn't have to be. Unfortunately, the version of religion being advocated today all over the world (whether it is Christianity or Islam) is often about putting women, and other subhumans, back in their "place." Can women choose to follow these religions? I suppose so, but I often suspect that if they were given more choices in life, they would not do so. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe my atheism makes me insensitive. However, my primary issue here is not what individual women choose to do in their own lives. I have a problem with women who think they should get to decide what others should be doing. I don't go from door to door telling women that they have to have abortions and get careers and shave their heads and wear pants. Why should they get to tell me that I have to have babies and stay home and cook dinner for my husband and have no say in our government?

Submitted to the 18th Carnival of Feminists.

12 comments:

Arbitrista said...

What's even more disgusting about the Theocon approach to social policy and politics is how little these things have to do with the actual content of their religion. Jesus talked about poverty, not abortion or women or gun control.

Let's just tell the truth, shall we? What we have are a bunch of bigots who are using God as a figleaf to conceal their own desire to dominate others. Period. They can't get away with saying "I hate women" so they say "God hates women." Even though their own religious texts say the opposite.

Inside the Philosophy Factory said...

First, it seems to me that those making arguments against women getting to vote are on the fringe. I also agree that the success of feminism is that women can make all kinds of choices, even those we think are just plain wrong.

The thing is that even in more conservative Christian communities, the role of women is more complex than it seems from the outside. I was Mormon for a while, and a feminist at the same time. My membership in the LDS church freaked-out my IRA supporting aunt, and she simply wouldn't believe that the Mormon church (in my experience) was not harmful to women.

It was impossible to convince her of the difference between structural power and what I've called "real" power. In the LDS church men have most of the structural power. They are the ones with the keys to the church building etc -- but the women are the ones in charge of a) the men and b) nearly everything else. This may be a result of another cultural aspect of the LDS church -- namely that the men in charge are usually professional men, so they work a lot and their wives generally work less than they do.

If we look at the world in terms of one gender serving another, we'll get the wrong idea. The better analogy is actually the way my nearly 90 year old grandparents drive... he can see and steers the car, she has all her wits about her and tells him where to go. As a team they can get from Florida to Iowa every spring.

Shaun Huston said...

What makes the discussion you referenced at buriedtreasurebooks even more frightening and hard to understand is how it quickly, and very matter of factly, turned not just towards why women should be stripped of the right to vote, and how granting women that right was such a big mistake in the first place, but how there are all these other classes of people who should also be stripped of their rights: welfare recipients (or, indeed, anyone who receives any kind of public help at all), men who don't own property, etc. I think that it is fairly clear that there is a segement of the American population that has no problem with taking choice away from women because they do not value choice at all, but prefer to live an authoritarian, and specifically patriarhical, life (although interestingly, if predictably, the pursuit of personal wealth seems to be the one area where liberty is to be valued, see the discussion re: making it possible or motivating men to acquire property so that they can vote).

luckybuzz said...

Right on, and I agree, and amen. Nitpicky detail, though: Buddhism is not so gender equal either--the Buddha said that the most senior nun should always bow to the most novice monk.

Otherwise, though, yeah.

Dr. Brazen Hussy said...

Philosophy Factory - Thanks for your insight. And I agree that it is usually more complex than it seems from the outside. Also, I'm sure that this particular viewpoint (re: women's suffrage) is far on the fringe, but in truth I'm mostly thinking about anti-abortion protesters and the like who try to force their beliefs on others.

Shaun - yes! It continually amazes me that so-called "libertarians" align themselves (in terms of party politics) with people like this...

luckybuzz - huh, must have missed that about Buddha. To be honest, my reading on the topic has been quite elementary. Oh well. Thanks though!

Penguin said...

wow. i'll write more later after i pick my brain off the floor. wow.

DrOtter said...

The whole point of self-determination (having the vote, right to abortion, right to live without fear of oppression or any other repressive law) is to have the choice to act as you see fit (within certain constraints of a moral society, not specifically religious morality). If religious women choose not to vote because they believe they should not have the right, fair enough, but they have no right to take that away from any other human being. The right of self-determination should be a birth right of every human being.

I like the way you write about this issue. You make a very eloquent case that is extremely compelling.

lil'rumpus said...

I read this post yesterday and, like all the others, was really impressed. It was on my mind, therefore, as I woke up this morning and turned on NPR....to hear an interview with the pastor of disaster, Jerry F. Sandwiched in between other morsels of his hateful rhetoric, was the comment that God is grieved by Americans killing unborn babies....this was in the context of a conversation about whether or not he believes that America is being somehow punished (through terrorism and natural disasters) for its unholy behavior.

And to add even more scariness to this, he is in the process of building a 6,000 seat church.

Seems that the fringe is larger than we'd like it to be...

Anonymous said...

Did you see this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3940719.stm

and speaking of voting rights, read this (it's tangential to the article):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4305174.stm

Kitty Jimjams said...

I love you, Dr Brazen Hussy.

Dr. Brazen Hussy said...

They will never accept those arguments. That is why the doctrine of separation of church and state is so sacred.

beepbeepitsme said...

"We must respect the other fellow's religion,but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." H. L. Mencken