• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this some kind of discrimination with ladies ?

chinu

chinu
Often, God is described as "He" but not "She". Ladies, do you see this as some kind of discrimination ?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Any specific reason behind ?
It's easier for me to see males as authority figures. I guess its just part of how I view gender, which is more traditional. I know G-d is really neither male nor female, but I just find it easier to relate to Him as male. It feels more protective.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Often, God is described as "He" but not "She". Ladies, do you see this as some kind of discrimination ?

Anyone who believes in a monolithic god who uses the words HE or SHe is being awful silly. After all, a HE or a SHE is only one half of a biological equation, suggesting that there MUST be at least one other god of the opposite sex.
 

chinu

chinu
It's easier for me to see males as authority figures. I guess its just part of how I view gender, which is more traditional. I know G-d is really neither male nor female, but I just find it easier to relate to Him as male. It feels more protective.
Thank you :)
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Anyone who believes in a monolithic god who uses the words HE or SHe is being awful silly. After all, a HE or a SHE is only one half of a biological equation, suggesting that there MUST be at least one other god of the opposite sex.
This is just absurd. The main reason G-d is given a gender is because most languages have no neutral gender that's also personal. Calling G-d 'It' is very impersonal and lacks the quality of relationship. It also seems very offensive.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
This is just absurd. The main reason G-d is given a gender is because most languages have no neutral gender that's also personal. Calling G-d 'It' is very impersonal and lacks the quality of relationship. It also seems very offensive.

It is hardly offensive and actually ACCURATE. Using HE or SHE invalidates the entire concept of their being just ONE god.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It is hardly offensive and actually ACCURATE. Using HE or SHE invalidates the entire concept of their being just ONE god.
How? It's merely a pronoun. Even if there were many gods, what's stopping them being all male or all female? It is obviously offensive. Do you call people whose gender you don't know 'it'? We don't even call animals 'it' when we know their gender; we use the right pronoun. I don't know where you're getting that there must be a female if there is a male. This does not follow. And as I've already said, G-d has no gender, we just say 'He' or 'She' because they are the pronouns English has. This isn't hard. Do you understand that G-d doesn't work like flesh and blood animals and a male or female need not imply another sex, especially when the entity in question is actually genderless?

Most people have a relationship with G-d; they don't respond emotionally to 'it'.

It's detached and impersonal. In English it's considered offensive and dehumanising.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
It is hardly offensive and actually ACCURATE. Using HE or SHE invalidates the entire concept of their being just ONE god.
So the entirety of Christendom, for two millennia, has somehow failed to realise this logical contradiction? Hmm.

@Rival is obviously right. Throughout those two millennia, the authority figures were all male. And, er, that's it.

There is a rather tantalising novel called "An Instance of the Fingerpost" which conjectures a possible second visit by Christ to Man, this time to England at the time of the Civil War, and this time round in female form. It's an excellent and thought-provoking novel: An Instance of the Fingerpost - Wikipedia
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
@Rival is obviously right. Throughout those two millennia, the authority figures were all male. And, er, that's it.
Not all of it. 'He' is used for G-d in Hebrew simply as the noun for deity in Hebrew is masculine. If it were feminine we would be saying 'She', I imagine. 'Shekinah' is feminine and is referred to as such.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
How? It's merely a pronoun. Even if there were many gods, what's stopping them being all male or all female? It is obviously offensive. Do you call people whose gender you don't know 'it'? We don't even call animals 'it' when we know their gender; we use the right pronoun. I don't know where you're getting that there must be a female if there is a male. This does not follow. And as I've already said, G-d has no gender, we just say 'He' or 'She' because they are the pronouns English has. This isn't hard. Do you understand that G-d doesn't work like flesh and blood animals and a male or female need not imply another sex?

Most people have a relationship with G-d; they don't respond emotionally to 'it'.


It's detached and impersonal. In English it's considered offensive and dehumanising.

It's merely a pronoun that indicates that there must be a corresponding counterpart. It is INACCURATE. I had no idea god was so thin skinned that he's offended by being simply referred to as god.

Male & female are biological terms that refer to one half of the requirements for reproduction. The concept that a species would have MALES but NO females is absurd... or that there would be FEMALES, but NO males. Thus calling a god MALE automatically suggests that there MUST be a corresponding female. If god doesn't work like flesh and blood animals, STOP referring to god in terms reserved for flesh and blood animals.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It's merely a pronoun that indicates that there must be a corresponding counterpart. It is INACCURATE. I had no idea god was so thin skinned that he's offended by being simply referred to as god.

Male & female are biological terms that refer to one half of the requirements for reproduction. The concept that a species would have MALES but NO females is absurd... or that there would be FEMALES, but NO males. Thus calling a god MALE automatically suggests that there MUST be a corresponding female. If god doesn't work like flesh and blood animals, STOP referring to god in terms reserved for flesh and blood animals.
Erm, you are taking this way further than anyone ever intended. Calling G-d 'He' is a personal pronoun. In conventional language use we use 'he' or 'she' as polite forms for people and animals and deity. In foreign languages inanimate objects also have genders, but obviously this is not referring to any biological sex. In French the Moon is feminine. Boat is masculine. We call G-d He or She because it better illustrates the closeness that we have with Him and the personal relationship we are meant to pursue. Human beings use language in myriad ways, not just the bizarrely concrete terms in which you are thinking. To call G-d anything other than 'He' or 'She' would be impersonal and lacking emotion, and one needs emotion to connect to one's Creator.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
So the entirety of Christendom, for two millennia, has somehow failed to realise this logical contradiction? Hmm.

@Rival is obviously right. Throughout those two millennia, the authority figures were all male. And, er, that's it.

There is a rather tantalising novel called "An Instance of the Fingerpost" which conjectures a possible second visit by Christ to Man, this time to England at the time of the Civil War, and this time round in female form. It's an excellent and thought-provoking novel: An Instance of the Fingerpost - Wikipedia

I haven't the slightest idea if 'Christendom' has failed to realize this logical contradiction or not. Either way it doesn't change the reality that it IS a logical contradiction. And yes, authority figures had always been males, so the use of masculine pronouns is used exclusively to emphasize the notion that males are somehow superior to females. In other words it's based on nothing more than a childish fear of women and a pathetic need to devalue them. Just look at Rival's original response... he STILL can't see a woman as an authority figure.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I haven't the slightest idea if 'Christendom' has failed to realize this logical contradiction or not. Either way it doesn't change the reality that it IS a logical contradiction. And yes, authority figures had always been males, so the use of masculine pronouns is used exclusively to emphasize the notion that males are somehow superior to females. In other words it's based on nothing more than a childish fear of women and a pathetic need to devalue them. Just look at Rival's original response... he STILL can't see a woman as an authority figure.
I am a girl.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Often, God is described as "He" but not "She". Ladies, do you see this as some kind of discrimination ?

I try to avoid using He, Him, His with God. Not that I believe in a God but gender identity tends to include a lot of baggage I suppose I don't feel is appropriate for a God which nothing is really known about.
 
Top