board77

At least historically, this is pretty clearly the case, and in much of the world right now too. Why?

Theories I have heard:

1) Men are historically the ones who put religions together. They see things from their own male point of view and are going to discount anything female unconciously.

2) As 1, but with malice aforethought.

I don't have the time to commit to a serious discussion, so I'll refrain from jumping in with strong opinions. But, here's an example for you. Draw your own conclusions.

Quote:

And the Eternal said to Moses, 'Go to the people and warn them to stay pure today and tomorrow. Let them wash their clothes.' Moses came down from the mountain to the people and warned the people to stay pure, and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, 'Be ready for the third day: Do not go near a woman.'" (Exodus 19:10,14-15)

Huh? When did the Lord say anything about not going near women? And, if you read what the Lords says, you would assume that "people" meant "men and women", wouldn't you? But Moses apparently assumes that "people" only means "men". Why?

It's that oppression thing. Men tend to have the power. Religions are powerful institutions. So men tend to run 'em, rather the way they tend to run everything else. And institutions, religious and otherwise, tend to perpetuate the power structures they represent. Marx. Althusser. Women and the unwashed masses generally come in for the short end of the stick.

Why do men tend to have the power?

My guess is that on the average the average difference in average aggression between avg. men and avg. women -- plus the reproductive "disadvantage" -- makes the balance of power tip in the male direction. Even a slight tip could make for some huge institutional inequalities over time.

Women are just as smart, though. By the way.

Has anyone here read "The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Tennenhaus Eisler?

I always thought that Men had issues of women having a sort of reproductive power over them. A man could be tricked into raising a child that is not his while that is near impossible for that to happen to a woman. Considering for eons property and power was passed on from father to son, I can imagine it would be very important that men to know for sure that they were the father. That meant for a long time controling women since they are the ones who could trick you. At least I guess so.

I took a class in college that focused on feminist writing and I vaugely remember one author saying that all politics, religion, art, society as a whole and all its foundations were created by men to make up for the fact that they could not give birth. She went on to say that when women wanted to get in on the male creations, men became threated and tried to control the women out of fear of the female ability to "create"/give birth.

I just wish I could remember the author's name.

Jude - Eisler, yes. I teach her theory. I also know her personally. Great stuff, imo. Weakly argued and controversial in a lot of places but it definitely explains some of the evidence much better than received theory can explain it.

Jn

Pondering: Are there religions controlled by women? Historically speaking, I mean. I don't know of any contemporary religions in which the feminine is dominant (except possibly Wicca? Don't know enough about it though).

Jn, what, precisely, do you teach?

Impenitent wrote:

Pondering: Are there religions controlled by women? Historically speaking, I mean. I don't know of any contemporary religions in which the feminine is dominant (except possibly Wicca? Don't know enough about it though).

From what I remember of my research into Wicca, depending on the tradition, the power is shared evenly by the Priest and Priestess. The Dianaic tradition is the only one I know of that is controlled by women (there may be more, but that's the only one I could think of off the top of my head).

S_O:

That's a fair description. Although even in most circles where the Priest and Priestess are equal, the Priest is usually at least ever so slightly deferential to the Priestess, in my experience.

It may have to do with the fact that many of them are married...

The Priest just doesn't want to hear about it when he gets home. He's a wise man. Could be why he's the Priest.

I always wanted to join a coven, but the closest I ever got was a sort of Pagan support group that met once a month.

Who knows if it was based on a real religion but in the book Mysts of Avalon Druids and the women at Avalon worshipped the Goddess. Also the High Priestess of Avalon was higher ranking than The Merlin. I would like to think Marion Bradley Zimmer based this on real history, but I have no way of knowing.

MZB based it on MZB's deepest wishes and desires. We really have blessed little to go on in terms of practices, except accounts from the Romans, who make all the Celtic and Germanic deities sound Roman, and from the Greeks, who make them all sound Greek. We have a lot of myths and legends from the Irish and Welsh, but they've been pretty romanticized, and not much is in there about practice anyway.

And of course we have anthropologist's guesses. See deepest wishes and desires, above.

But it's pretty clear that whatever was around Europe in the preChristian era, it wasn't as patriarchal. The accounts of the Celts in particular tend to describe a more equal-opportunity society than the Romans were comfortable with.

*thinks back*

It might have something to do with distractions. Men are easily distracted by women, at least to the point where they would do something about it. To isolate men from women in a religious context would help keep men focused on their religion and duty to their power instead of letting them ponder how best to get their next groove on.

And, of course, I expect there is some power playing going on.

Frelga wrote:

Huh? When did the Lord say anything about not going near women? And, if you read what the Lords says, you would assume that "people" meant "men and women", wouldn't you? But Moses apparently assumes that "people" only means "men". Why?

You'd have to look at the original language to judge on that. I think "do not go near a woman" is code for "don't have sex". The idea that sex weakens a man is one of those things people seem to believe by instinct. Even to this day, you can find coaches who warn their players to stay away from the ladies the night before the big game.

As for the bigger question, I think you miss the big picture if you just focus on the issues with women. Religions almost always exist to maintain and reinforce the status quo and social hierarchy. In nearly all cultures, this has meant rich over poor, ruler over subjects, and men over women (etc). People are wired this way, and it takes effort to overcome it.

Quote:

Religions almost always exist to maintain and reinforce the status quo and social hierarchy.

Although paradoxically some were originally revolutionary movements, in essence, such as Islam, and to some extent Christianity. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Axordil wrote:

Although paradoxically some were originally revolutionary movements, in essence, such as Islam, and to some extent Christianity. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Yup. Society worships yesterday's heretics and burns today's. Or something like that.

The problem with any revolution, if successful, is that it soon turns into that it rebelled against. Happens all the time, whether in religion, politics, or film ideology. Very few revolutions have been able to escape this, whether in whole or in part.

Historically, I can only think of a few religions that were equal or dominated by women, most of them primitive. One example would be the ancient "corn king" culture in the Mediterranean, where the king was sacrificed every year to ensure the crops' growth. Most were wiped out by the Greeks and Romans.

It is a fact that the more warlike a culture tends to be, the more male-dominated it tends to be. Most societies simply would not risk the ones who bore children, but males were more expendable. After all, it only takes one male to get many females pregnant, but without females you're screwed.

Quote:

but without females you're screwed.

Oh my, there are so many places one could go here...must stay on topic...must stay on topic...Barry Bonds, 71, Mark McGuire, 70, Sammy Sosa, 68...

Dave_LF wrote:

The idea that sex weakens a man is one of those things people seem to believe by instinct. Even to this day, you can find coaches who warn their players to stay away from the ladies the night before the big game.

It does make one more laid back...

Or, at least, it did for me back when I was getting some.