• 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!

christianity and femenism

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
synthesizing events else where into two quotes for discussion

"not all Christians sounds a lot like not all men."

"Isn't Christianity inherently in the position of power? "

what do you think? What does it implie? Does inter sectional feminism have a roll in criticizing or dealing with criticism of religion? How does feminism handle that while also embracing and empowering all woman?
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
"not all Christians sounds a lot like not all men."
It sounds like a similar statement to me.

"Isn't Christianity inherently in the position of power? "
Men are inherently masculine. Christianity is not inherently anything. Men are here to stay. Christianity can change or even disappear just like Manichean religion did.

Does feminism have a roll in criticizing or dealing with criticism of religion?
Feminists do but not feminism. I think feminism can be limited to very small aims or very broad ones. It, too, can disappear or change and is fragile.
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Men are inherently masculine.

I would guess an overwhelming majority of feminists would object to this statement, fwiw. At least as it appears to function in your analogy. It seems a little close to saying that the male dominance is "natural" and inevitable. That might not actually be what you mean.

To Iti: I don't see any reason why criticisms of religion shouldn't be possible from an intersectional perspective. Solidarity is a fine ideal but it's not the only principle that matters? I'm sure there will always be differences of opinion about when and how to be critical of different religious traditions, but it wouldn't make sense to me to exclude religion in general from criticism. To offer another analogy, women also participate in the expression of hegemonic masculinity in western culture outside of religion, but criticism of those expressions isn't a rejection of the women themselves. Criticism of patriarchal religious practices isn't a rejection of religious women qua women either.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I would guess an overwhelming majority of feminists would object to this statement, fwiw. At least as it appears to function in your analogy. It seems a little close to saying that the male dominance is "natural" and inevitable. That might not actually be what you mean.

To Iti: I don't see any reason why criticisms of religion shouldn't be possible from an intersectional perspective. Solidarity is a fine ideal but it's not the only principle that matters? I'm sure there will always be differences of opinion about when and how to be critical of different religious traditions, Criticism of patriarchal religious practices isn't a rejection of religious women qua women either.
How does feminism go about making an inclusive space that's safe for victims of religion while also being open and inviting to the religious.

I think the onus is on the Christian. As a cis white male in a feminist/lgbt/etc I expect and accept attacks and criticism. It's coming from an earnest place and from experience. People have been hurt.

So when I get told, " I don't trust cis white men," I tell them I don't blame them and that I'm sorry for there pain and suffering.

I Think Christians as a dominant power structure owe that to the movements they belong.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I wish feminists would be MORE vocal in their criticism of the most of the world's most popular religions.
I think it can be hard as feminist can a d are religious.

I mean look at Malala , who is feminist a d Muslim.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
How does feminism go about making an inclusive space that's safe for victims of religion while also being open and inviting to the religious.

A flip answer, but also a sincere one:

critical thinking.

Draw distinctions. The local Presbyterian church might be a very safe community space, and it might have dropped all the misogynistic bits our of its doctrine. Or perhaps its minister is a closet extremist. The point is to be open and aware and honest about the pitfalls.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I wish feminists would be MORE vocal in their criticism of the most of the world's most popular religions.

This. The willingness of feminists to relentlessly (and rightly) criticise one but afford another ridiculous levels of protection and to actively collude in silencing its critics is so frustrating to watch - especially when this one religion so often perpetuates patriarchal social norms that feminists willingly oppose when they're perpetuated by other religions.
 
Last edited:

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
How does feminism go about making an inclusive space that's safe for victims of religion while also being open and inviting to the religious.

Well, I don't know :) "Feminism" is a diverse and diffuse enough movement and collection of views that I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about this monolithically, but I think the roughly correct but uninteresting answer is "thoughtfully...".

I think there are times when stridently anti-religious views should be welcomed (say from Marxist feminists), and other contexts where it makes sense to avoid those arguments in order to make more room for people from various religious traditions to collaborate comfortably. There doesn't have to be only one acceptable kind of feminist space.

Also, disagreements can be productive. I don't think "an inclusive space" should preclude exposure to disagreement, even very strong disagreements on core beliefs. But disagreements can be discussed in a thoughtful way, where everyone is allowed to express themselves. Inclusion is about basic respect, and a commitment to multi-culturalism has to allow for meaningful differences to co-exist. We can embrace shared goals without demanding ideological purity. I think this is foundational to any pluralistic ethos really.

I think the onus is on the Christian. As a cis white male in a feminist/lgbt/etc I expect and accept attacks and criticism. It's coming from an earnest place and from experience. People have been hurt.

So when I get told, " I don't trust cis white men," I tell them I don't blame them and that I'm sorry for there pain and suffering.

I Think Christians as a dominant power structure owe that to the movements they belong.

When you say "onus" it sounds like you are arguing about something like moral responsibility. You're arguing that members of dominant social categories/groups have a moral obligation to be less sensitive to criticism than members of traditionally disadvantaged groups, as a kind of reparations for past injustices. I think that's sort of reasonable as a heuristic, but I think there's probably some limit to the usefulness of this way of thinking.

So, for example, I think "white fragility" (or "male fragility" by extension) is a real phenomenon, i.e the tendency of men, or white people in the US to interpret discussions about racism or sexism as personal attacks, or to be oversensitive to those discussions. I agree that it would be helpful if people were more open to discussions on these issues. But, I think in some large part the defensiveness is a function of the way people have been taught to think about the issues. They tend to think about them as involving individual attitudes and prejudices more so than as systemic/institutional/cultural problems. In short they think their identity is being attacked, i.e that they are being attacked for being white, or male, or Christian.

The problem is that while I agree this is their (white, male, cis, Christian...) problem (especially from the perspective of a member of some oppressed group), from a social movements perspective I don't think it's particularly useful to sit around waiting for them to fix it themselves. If feminists want to raise consciousness, we have to work with people where they are. It feels nice to have a theory of the moral obligations of dominant groups, but I'm not sure it's that practically useful. I think it's worth our time to try to find ways to communicate effectively even accepting the failings of the people we're trying to reach. Not because it's "fair" but because it's practical.

Also, I generalized "Christian" to "dominant groups" just because I think it should be relative to a given society. Christians don't bear the kind of "onus" you are referring to in Saudi Arabia, for example. Obviously one of the more contentions areas around "intersectionality" and religion these days has to do with how to think about Muslims as both an oppressed group (in the west) but also an oppressive group (towards women, especially in the Middle East). I think the answer is that it's not helpful to overgeneralize ones stance towards these issues. One can recognize the reality and danger of Islamaphobia while also meaningfully criticizing Islam as its practiced in many countries, while also being careful about over-generalizing to a billion people. Here again I think we just run into the limits of the conceptual framework of oppression. If intersectionality gets us to recognize that there can be multiple overlapping oppressions it also means that groups can occupy both roles with respect to different other groups, and the logic of group membership is messy.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I am a christian which is the most difficult thing I have attempted to do. A christian should live by the teachings of our savior, Jesus Christ. If its not in the new testament we do not recognize it. No christian should accept any teachings that is not biblical. Extra biblical material leads to cult religion. Christians should work their entire lives to improve themselves to be spiritually clean enough to stand before our lord. Those who don't put in the work are not Christians according to what Jesus. Just some background to show what Christians should strive for. If every Christian would practice the above I am sure our religion would gain respect even from atheists and others.

That said I do I have a question for feminists and women in general. Instead of protesting people like Trumps admittedly crass groping decades ago or a fornicating Christian Evangelical etc why do they not protest the true 1000 lb gorilla in the room, ie Islam's awful brutalizing of women via Sharia law? Muslims are involved in thousands of rapes, mutilations, and honor killings (murders pure and simple and horrific amputations and tortures that would make Pol Pot blush) all while hiding behind sharia law. Its a perfect storm everything is coming together feminists could really call attention to the atrocities committed upon women daily, no hourly, from simple mental pressures to awful unmentionable horrors.

Failing that why cant Feminists make radical Islam a project?

; ( >
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I am a christian which is the most difficult thing I have attempted to do. A christian should live by the teachings of our savior, Jesus Christ. If its not in the new testament we do not recognize it. No christian should accept any teachings that is not biblical. Extra biblical material leads to cult religion. Christians should work their entire lives to improve themselves to be spiritually clean enough to stand before our lord. Those who don't put in the work are not Christians according to what Jesus. Just some background to show what Christians should strive for. If every Christian would practice the above I am sure our religion would gain respect even from atheists and others.

That said I do I have a question for feminists and women in general. Instead of protesting people like Trumps admittedly crass groping decades ago or a fornicating Christian Evangelical etc why do they not protest the true 1000 lb gorilla in the room, ie Islam's awful brutalizing of women via Sharia law? Muslims are involved in thousands of rapes, mutilations, and honor killings (murders pure and simple and horrific amputations and tortures that would make Pol Pot blush) all while hiding behind sharia law. Its a perfect storm everything is coming together feminists could really call attention to the atrocities committed upon women daily, no hourly, from simple mental pressures to awful unmentionable horrors.

Failing that why cant Feminists make radical Islam a project?

; ( >
Feminists can and do criticize and combat all of those things. It's not an either or deal.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
synthesizing events else where into two quotes for discussion

"not all Christians sounds a lot like not all men."

"Isn't Christianity inherently in the position of power? "

what do you think? What does it implie? Does inter sectional feminism have a roll in criticizing or dealing with criticism of religion? How does feminism handle that while also embracing and empowering all woman?
Hmm. If you are asking what I think you are asking I do not think there is a place for that in feminism. There is however, i am sure, a large number of fwminists who are vocal about criticizing aspects of religion that do not relate to women. If a religion engages in practice that do effect women then it is within the purview of feminism to address that topic.

Despite all of the different groups of feminists, if we think of feminism as part of a movement toward critical thought with a lens of how different cultural aspects effect women, then we can better see what areas feminism ought to address.

So if we are talking about how religion effects women, yes. If we are talking about how religion effects non-religious, no. If we are talking about how religion effects non-religious women, yes. While intersectionality can give depth and breadth to the subject of feminism, at its heart the focus should be about the impact on women.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
I wish feminists would be MORE vocal in their criticism of the most of the world's most popular religions.
It's difficult in a patriarch society. Out of all the deity religions I have studied, only spiritual gnosis ("gnostics"?) accepted women as spiritually equal with men. They had female teachers, and believed that 6 of the 7 women who always walked with Jesus were disciples as well. The orthodox (catholic) reformed the Gospel to include the Hebrews ways. But the non Canon books of spiritual gnosis shows the impact of females in the early Christian era before the RCC came to be (300 years after Christ), Paul traveled with an amazing female disciple (Thecla or Thekla).

In the Gospel of Thomas and Sophia Pistis, Mary was clearly in fear of Peter. Yet it was Mary that interceded in disciple arguments among themselves with wisdom.

Patriarchy taken to extremes is dangerous to spiritual knowledge. Eve did the right thing, accepting the spirit which wasn't given by the creator God. Secret John has Jesus telling John the truth of the garden myth. Wisdom is a she, and it was Jesus mother (Holy Spirit) who reclaimed him in spirit saying "this is my son, hear him". Especially since Jesus later said "no man has ever heard God's voice".

Perspective.
 
Top