-
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!
It just seems like religion only benefits men...
- Thread starter Ashoka
- Start date
I feel pretty benefitted. 
(Despite my username, I am a woman.)
I think instead of generalizing, it might be beneficial to pick out what practice you find problematic, and in which religion. I won't argue that some religions have some stanches towards women that are problematic today, but I would question why they are there, and if they are relevant or not today.
(Despite my username, I am a woman.)
I think instead of generalizing, it might be beneficial to pick out what practice you find problematic, and in which religion. I won't argue that some religions have some stanches towards women that are problematic today, but I would question why they are there, and if they are relevant or not today.
Not sure what you are referring to specifically here. In my religion women believers are eligible for the same benefit: adoption by God and eternal incorruptible life partaking in the Divine Nature. All of the ones I know through the Church and communities seem pretty benefitted (and at times due to cultural reasons the primary beneficiaries). That's just my perspective though, each person has their own life experiences.
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
I was Catholic for a while. I saw that it was full of blatant misogny. Women cannot become priests. Popes have spoken against women serving at the altar. Some object to altar girls, or even Eucharistic ministers. In my diocese, women can't even do readings.
Church fathers have also had some nasty things to say about women. Tertullian said that a woman is a temple built over a sewer. St. Jerome thought pregnant women were disgusting and shouldn't be allowed out in public. Clement of Alexandria said that "Every woman should be filled with shame with the thought that she is a woman." Aquinas taught that women were a genetic mistake.
I'm sorry, I mean no rudeness, I am simply pointing out how woman have been viewed throughout history, especially in religion. We can partake, but only in a limited way. We can practice, but only if a man oversees it and says it's okay.
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
I feel pretty benefitted.
(Despite my username, I am a woman.)
I think instead of generalizing, it might be beneficial to pick out what practice you find problematic, and in which religion. I won't argue that some religions have some stanches towards women that are problematic today, but I would question why they are there, and if they are relevant or not today.
That is fair. With Hinduism, I left because I couldn't reconcile a lot of different things, such as how women were treated. Women can't enter certain temples. Women are unclean during their menses. By far though, Hinduism and Buddhism are somewhat better in how they treat women, but the misogyny is still there.
There are new religious movements that do see women as equal to men, and that's all well and good, but that's how it should have been in the beginning. Even Wicca is problematic (Gerald Gardner was basically a dirty old man and ageist and sexist as all get out).
I see. Well I suppose it's a matter of worldview how one sees things, which makes sense and to me is to be entirely expected.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Very good point, and I fully agree.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Some of them doesn't treat women all that well
However Norse mythology seem to treat the women as equal to the rest, more or less.
Frigg
Odin wife were the goddess of fertility, motherhood and prophecy
Freya
Associated with love and battle, Freya was also a master of a form of magic known as seidr. She rode a chariot driven by cats and had a cloak of falcon feathers that could enable the wearer to fly. She was also the fierce ruler of a realm called Folkvangr, and had claim over the souls of half the Norse warriors who died in battle. The other half went to Valhalla.
Idun
Goddess of spring and youth, whose store of magical apples could rejuvenate the gods when they grew too old.
The Valkyries, that were also womens.
Valkyrie, also spelled Walkyrie, Old Norse Valkyrja (“Chooser of the Slain”), in Norse mythology, any of a group of maidens who served the god Odin and were sent by him to the battlefields to choose the slain who were worthy of a place in Valhalla.
Last you also have Hel, which rules the underworld and the dead.
So besides Odin as the leader, these goddesses were equally important to the culture at the time.
Honestly, I chalk up a lot of the 'women may not enter' stuff to people, not God/dess. So what if someone doesn't want me here or there? I'll go elsewhere.
As to the menses thing, a lot of women straight up ignore that(and have men support them for doing so). I really enjoyed this article regarding the topic:Three Days of Impurity: Menstruation and (In)Auspiciousness Its long, but I have never seen the topic addressed so thoroughly. I think how one deals with this topic is a personal choice, and should be well thought out. In the end, its between you and you deity, not you and some dude.
I wouldn't worry so much about what some guy did/said hundreds of years ago. What about now? There are some misogynists, for sure, but there's a large population of men who don't feel that way. Don't brush them under the rug because those who are sexist speak louder.
As to Gardner and Wicca... I understand he was a founder, and had his problems, but so much feminist religion(that sometimes downplays the importance of men) sprung up out of it, I'd say its balanced out some by now.
I say this with nothing but care, but the way this seems to be bothering you suggests you may have some healing to do. If stepping away from religion for a time encourages such healing, this might be a good choice.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's a theory behind that as the men during Viking times were often gone due to fishing and conquering, thus it was the women who ran the home and had a huge impact on local decisions. Thus, even today the Scandinavian countries have greater gender equality than any other peoples worldwide.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/they/it/neopronouns
Im not a woman. I was raised one but I am nonbinary. However I agree with @JustGeorge and I'll add that not all religions are like that. For instance I am a neopagan and luciferian. No one rules over me. I make my own rules and choices. My path is very individualistic and even if I was a woman it'd still be the same no one rules over me. And if I followed a traditional religion and I was female Ill refuse traditional practices that would see me as lesser then men. And it'd be between me and my god(s).
I do find it interesting that while some religions have roles prescribed to one gender or the other, we seldom hear men complain of being left out of the 'women's mysteries'(for lack of a better term). I suspect it probably bothers women more due to sexism presenting in other areas of society.
I used to be bothered by such until I examined why such 'guidelines' existed. Its not personal, in my opinion, and its not meant to disparage anyone(typically). A lot of it is historical leftovers, but some have deeper meanings. However, many people can't get past some things because they simply appear to be 'sexist' on the surface. I'm all for a person choosing to discard a belief if they feel it doesn't fit in their life, but that doesn't make the whole religion and those who adhere to it 'wrong'.
Looking from outside (atheist) i see women considered 2nd class (or worse) by the abrahamic religions.
I don't have much knowledge of other religions so can't comment.
The women until recently tended to die young, the tribes needed them to reproduce frequently, needed them to do lots of manual labor, needed them to do lots of things that men couldn't. Nature taught society that women's place was bearing children. It taught that men were disposable as warriors and that women were the center pins for all else.
Today what with electrical appliances, longer lifespans for women, better medicine, less warfare -- things have changed. Nature has changed. Now nature teaches other things. Men are no longer disposable, and women are no longer to be worked to death at a young age. At least its no longer considered to be an assumed and natural thing.
There are religions which have left behind the expectation that women be servile, meek and uneducated or pretend that those are integral traits to being a woman.
But it will still exist so long as cultural norms, regardless of religion, allow them to. It's not like religions which did have strong female icons made their culture less misogynistic. (Looking at you, Athens.)
But it will still exist so long as cultural norms, regardless of religion, allow them to. It's not like religions which did have strong female icons made their culture less misogynistic. (Looking at you, Athens.)
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Basic observed reasoning creation thesis by human men as sciences inventor attacked irradiated man's mind first.
So his healed life mind became egotistically imbalanced as compared to the woman who he said her purpose was to serve him.
Yet wrote information for his own eyes to see and read in a creation topic stating heavens spirit is equal life hence life is equal.
Most leadership is man's titled entitlement based on reading woman hurt him Claiming it is her karma to be treated thusly.
To be considered less.
In fact O maths Sophia space womb science space hurt man as he changed the nothing status himself.
Woman is not his karma in life science harm was.
Reads yet ignored his own teaching.
So each one man eventuates into his own higher reckoning. Knows it is wrong and then says so.
So his healed life mind became egotistically imbalanced as compared to the woman who he said her purpose was to serve him.
Yet wrote information for his own eyes to see and read in a creation topic stating heavens spirit is equal life hence life is equal.
Most leadership is man's titled entitlement based on reading woman hurt him Claiming it is her karma to be treated thusly.
To be considered less.
In fact O maths Sophia space womb science space hurt man as he changed the nothing status himself.
Woman is not his karma in life science harm was.
Reads yet ignored his own teaching.
So each one man eventuates into his own higher reckoning. Knows it is wrong and then says so.
Wow. Wow. I have never realized as you have seemed to realize that religions "seem to" degrade women. That means to treat them with disrespect. I don't see it for real in any religion.
Might you mean "disparage"?
There is a passage in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad that associates some foreigners with the asuras. Also, there are some temples in India that foreigners are not permitted to enter even though a foreigner may be a practicing Hindu. A person living in the 21st century would very likely find such things xenophobic. Disgusted by xenophobia, that person might turn away from Hinduism in order to disassociate with the xenophobia that has somehow tainted the whole religion. The same 21st century person, who is more enlightened than the ancients and uses better technology than they did and has more free time than they did, could found his own religion that is free of the xenophobia and other bad things that Hinduism is tainted with. His new religion would use today's technology, which would further make his religion truly fitting with the time.
About a millennium later, when that person's new religion is no longer new but ancient and written about in the textbooks (or whatever might be used) and still has adherents, there will be individuals who will be critical of that religion. To them, it will be tainted by bad things that the founder never thought were bad. Whereas the founder never would have thought a particular practice is repugnant, the people in the future will not be able to not see the practice as repugnant because their enlightened society and culture will be one that forms them to see the practice as repugnant.
If the 'repugnant practice' in that religion is divinely commanded and necessary for all times and places, perhaps the future enlightened people have a very good reason to leave the religion? But, what if the practice was not necessarily divinely commanded and simply reflected assumptions that the founder and countless other people had during his day and age? What if the main teachings of the religion---its eternal truths---are not offensive or problematic to the future enlightened people? The religion might even have the teaching that it has not just one founder but many founders who will show up throughout the centuries in order to keep it up to date. One of those founders who lives about a millennium after its original founding might annul the repugnant practice with divine sanction for all we know.
According to Jay Lakhani, Hinduism is a religion with many founders throughout the centuries. Individual women and men today can become its contemporary founders. They can reform it where it may need reform. (We could see new śāstras and sūtras in our lifetime.) This is one reason that I find Hinduism still worth adhering to despite some historical things in it that might make me uncomfortable as a 21st century human being. Is there really misogyny and xenophobia in Hinduism? Honestly, I don't know because I am ignorant of the actual outlook of the ancients and what their intentions were. As a foreigner, should I feel offended that I cannot enter some temples in India? Personally, it doesn't bother me that I cannot enter some temples. From what I have read, foreigners are not permitted in some temples there because the priests do not want to risk having someone inside who may not know how to properly purify himself for the experience. I am fine with that. Fortunately, there are many, many temples that I can enter in America, India, and other countries. I love Hinduism, warts and all.
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
In man's ancient science technology to theory about balances is lying.
Balance exists first not by theism.
A man human.
A woman human.
The woman by life giver is procreative creator bleeds. Life continuance.
Man uses technology theoried only by his man human belief.
His body does not own bleeding.
He gets attacked by removing balanced life then his cells unnaturally bleed.
Who is to blame?
Man is by technology involved in greed. To be what he never was......a God.
O earth owns all created sources.
Man said I now want to accumulate and give my own self all planetary sources.
How can you believe yourself correct when relating man's ideal about technology and changed religious concepts?
O earth owned all wealth not man.
In fact your advice would tell you technology changed religious concepts.
Balance exists first not by theism.
A man human.
A woman human.
The woman by life giver is procreative creator bleeds. Life continuance.
Man uses technology theoried only by his man human belief.
His body does not own bleeding.
He gets attacked by removing balanced life then his cells unnaturally bleed.
Who is to blame?
Man is by technology involved in greed. To be what he never was......a God.
O earth owns all created sources.
Man said I now want to accumulate and give my own self all planetary sources.
How can you believe yourself correct when relating man's ideal about technology and changed religious concepts?
O earth owned all wealth not man.
In fact your advice would tell you technology changed religious concepts.