board77

... Does that mean "make love not war" would really work?

We've been going about it all wrong. Obviously, Bush just needs to get laid.

Ax, hush your mouth. Or go find Mrs. Ax.

Mrs. Ax has a bad cold, alas. And breathing is important.

Dave_LF wrote:

men over women (etc). People are wired this way, and it takes effort to overcome it.

Strongly disagree. People are socialized, not wired, to think of men "over" women. From the time we are little, we are taught to think of men as being the more powerful, the more capable, the "head of the household" (what utter rubbish), the ones in charge of "protecting" women, the ones whose names we are ultimately supposed to take as our own. If you buy into the greater nonsense of certain religious traditions, we are told that women "came from" men (even though, logically, this is a subversion of the actual natural order, in which men come from (are born of) women) and that women are meant to be submissive and obedient to their husbands. We are even taught - most of us - to think of God as - Male, He, Father, Son, Almighty Person of the Male Gender. These are not "natural" or "wired" thoughts. They are learned. Most of these ideas had been introduced to me by the time I was two or three. Most, thanks to religion.

Dave_LF wrote:

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".

Of course, Dave. In fact, it's not even code, it's plain text. But my point is the Lord didn't say anything about having sex, either. Although there is a lovely interpretation here that as Moses was having a talk with men, his sister Miriam, an important prophet in her own right, was having the same chat with the women, telling them not to go near men.

Just to rock the boat, here are some views on the role and responsibilities of the Jewish woman, and Jewish marriage in general. I will point out that these are from the more conservative Orthodox perspective, and I personally take a more liberal view.

From http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/women.htm, a bit of background

Quote:

According to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of "binah" (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men. The rabbis inferred this from the idea that woman was "built" (Genesis 2,22) rather than "formed" (Genesis 2,7), and the Hebrew root of "build" has the same consonants as the word "binah". It has been said that the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah) were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in prophecy. It has also been said that women did not participate in the idolatry regarding the golden calf. Some traditional sources suggest that women are closer to God's ideal than men.

Quote:

The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they were in the rest of Western civilization until this century. Women had the right to buy, sell, and own property, and make their own contracts, rights which women in Christian countries (including the USA) did not have until about 100 years ago.

Though it goes without saying that men enjoyed greater freedom than women.

Quote:

Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's. Men do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a right that was recognized by law in many Christian countries until a few hundred years ago. In cases of rape, a woman is generally presumed not to have consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she consented after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! [...] Traditional Judaism recognizes that forced sexual relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not permitted; in many states in the West, rape within marriage is still not a criminal act.

Quote:

A husband is responsible for providing his wife with food, clothing, and sexual relations (Exodus 21,10), as well as anything else specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). Marital sexual relations are the woman's right, not the man's.

Quote:

Women are exempted from all positive commandments ("thou shalts" as opposed to "thou shalt nots") that are time-related (that is, commandments that must be performed at a specific time of the day or year), because the woman's duties as wife and mother are so important that they cannot be postponed to fulfill a commandment.

It is important to clarify that women are not required to fulfil these commandments, but they are certainly not prohibited from fulfilling them. However, this exemption is used by more conservative Jewish communities to exclude women from active role in worship. Still, if one stops to think about it, Judaism considers the woman's role as a mother and housemaker so crucial as to supersede even the fulfilment of God's commandments.

Quote:

Second, because this exemption diminishes the role of women in the synagogue, many people perceive that women have no role in Jewish religious life. This misconception derives from the mistaken assumption that Jewish religious life revolves around the synagogue. It does not; it revolves around the home, where the woman's role is every bit as important as the man's.

More specifically Orthodox view from here http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/04 ... on-53.html:

Quote:

According to many classical Torah authorities, women are not required to get married. A woman could find a place in Orthodox Judaism without involvement in the roles of wife and mother. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Orthodox Jewish women in our times find these roles central to their divine service.

It has long fascinated me how religions adapt to changing cultural norms. Last week I had to sit in on the final marriage counseling session of two of my friends so that I could witness and notarize their signatures on their marriage certificate. I then attended their wedding a few days afterwards.

What interested me most on these two occasions was how both the counselor (a minister of some evangelical variety) and the minister who performed the wedding both referenced the same Bible verse about a woman "submitting" to her husband. Both felt the need to address this particular verse, and to be quite honest I was taken aback (but not surprsed, per se) at the liberties they took in order to make it fit more with our modern notions of gender equality. Further, in both cases, the ministers failed to even attempt to justify their interpretations of the verse and simply explained at length "this is how it should be understood." It was as if they felt that there was no controversy about the issue that needed to be addressed.

Certainly an in-depth exploration of the context and interpretational history of the verse would have been too time consuming for the forum in which it was being discussed, but I was still hoping for more than the non-existent justification my friends were given.

Contrast this to 10-years ago, when I much more often saw ministers angrily defending the idea of wifely submission.

Frelga:

I have often thought that Orthodox Judaism has an extremely elegant and well-thought out method of maintaining the status quo: elevating the role of the homemaker to be equal to that of the wage earner. It still strikes me as a little too "separate but equal." But neither is it oppressive in the same degree as some of the other belief systems we're talking about.

Ax wrote:

So why DO most religions have a problem with women?

Maybe it's so that women have to stay nice and subtle about running everything, rather than taking the easier path and being overbearing tyrants.

LOL! This thread is dying because everyone is of the same opinion. I really need to get in here and ruffle some feathers!

(For those of you who don't know, I'm what most people would consider a fundie, the husband-submitting, dress-wearing, home-schooling type )

~Sidonzo

And how often do you *not* get your way in the family- despite being "the husband-submitting, dress-wearing, home-schooling type". In other words, if you really want something, you get it, don't you????

Women rule already, I tell you!

I think it is obvious why so many religions have a problem with women - and the reason is why so many earlier religions revered women so much. Women are the source of life.

Meril told me about this Native American tribe that, if a man ever bested a woman in an argument, she would simply lift her skirt and show herself to him. That would shut him up. She's saying "so you won the argument - you still came from here!"

That, and new religions like to reverse old religions.

Axordil wrote:

Frelga:

I have often thought that Orthodox Judaism has an extremely elegant and well-thought out method of maintaining the status quo: elevating the role of the homemaker to be equal to that of the wage earner. It still strikes me as a little too "separate but equal." But neither is it oppressive in the same degree as some of the other belief systems we're talking about.

I have often thought so too. Some of the more winsome and less strident elements in conservative Christianity also try to strike this 'elegant and well thought out' balance.

I'd like to know how single childless women fare in Orthodox Jewish circles though ... some churches treat their single women (and men) as if they were invisible.

My mum, a stay-at-home mother for most of her married life, is one of the shrewdest and most capable business women I know.

I am not a mother or a wife. I am far from being a militant feminist but I feel strongly about women being encouraged to fulfil their full potential in the church. I am in leadership in my own church and I am pretty confident that my God has no problem with me or women in general. It's taken me about 20 years to reach this quiet confidence and it's been completely worth it.

I'm a sort of a conservative Christian who teeters towards liberalism now and then and I don't have any problem with God being addressed as Father. It's beautiful symbolism, nothing to get uptight about. God, of course, transcends gender anyway, but the Father metaphor is predominant in Scripture and I'm too tired right now to debate why I have no problem with that. There are also references to the motherly side of God in Scripture so for me it all balances out.

I agree with Cenedril that one of the reasons for oppression of women is FEAR.

And one doesn't have to be a mother to be deeply aware of one's femininity and the whole 'source of life' stuff. I like getting in touch with my inner earth mother.

I also adore kids but I also adore handing them back to their parents.

Quote:

Meril told me about this Native American tribe that, if a man ever bested a woman in an argument, she would simply lift her skirt and show herself to him. That would shut him up.

I can envision the current response to this. The young man quickly drops his trousers, waves his manhood proudly and says "hey baby, without this you got bupkus". Oh the wonders of modern life.

Hey Diamond, I didn't say fear, although that does often tie in to reverence. The old religions have a much healthier view.

The new religions might have feared the woman, or might have feared the ol religions.

Most mainstream religions have been used as social engineering. As a result the successful ones in the past have been those championed by TPTB - ie, those that not only don't challenge their power, but reinforce it. Kings have "god-given rights", etc. And TPTB in most cases were male-dominated.

C_G--

Good to see you again. And I suspect you have your finger on something with reverence for women and the mysterious power they have for creating life being a problem for the "new" religions...and their need to control behavior.

The relationship between religious belief and morality in general seems to have been different for pre-scriptural religions (that is, religions where the theology was transmitted orally) but the change is most clear when it comes to attempts to control female sexuality, I think. The notion of women during their menses being "unclean," for example, and the attendant regulations of staying away from then, not touching them, not even seeing them, comes to mind especially, but there are many others across the religious board.

Axordil wrote:

notion of women during their menses being "unclean," for example, and the attendant regulations of staying away from then, not touching them, not even seeing them, comes to mind especially, but there are many others across the religious board.

The Sioux/Lakota would have seperate tents for women when they were having their period. They were not allowed to leave and they weren't allowed to converse with men during this time. Only women could attend on them or even go into the tent. I'm not sure why they did this, if it was an attempt at control or if there was some other cultural/survival aspect that I didn't read about.

Does anyone know?

Axordil wrote:

I have often thought that Orthodox Judaism has an extremely elegant and well-thought out method of maintaining the status quo: elevating the role of the homemaker to be equal to that of the wage earner.

Well, yes, that's true enough. In fact, you might say that the Jewish woman's (traditional) role as a home-maker has higher status. The woman is seen as primarily responsible not just for physical well-being of children, but for their spiritual upbringing and education as well.

Keep in mind, too, that the Jewish woman was not barred from bread-winning, and she also retained the rights to her own property.

Just for fun, this is the excerpt from the Book of Proverbs, which every Jewish husband is supposed to sing to his wife on Shabbat.

King Solomon wrote:

A woman of worth - who can find one: for her price is far above rubies.
The heart of her husband safely trusts in her and he shall have no lack of gain.
She will do him good and not evil, all the days of her life.
She seeks wool and flax and works willingly with her hands.
She is like the merchant ships, she brings her food from afar…
She examines a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard…
She sees that her merchandise is good: her candle does not go out at night.
She puts her hand to the staff of flax, while her palms hold the spindle.
She stretches her hand out to the poor, she reaches out her hand to the needy…
She makes garments and sells them, and brings clothes to the merchant…
She opens her mouth with wisdom and on her tongue is a Torah of lovingkindness.
Looks are deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord shall be praised…
Proverbs, 31

I highlighted the parts that speak of the woman's role as the manager of estate and bread-winner.

However. I think it was Aviva Cantor who wrote (or possibly quoted somebody) that patriarchy operates by defining a certain area as being of supreme importance, and then barring women from it. That could be bread-winning, fighting, or, as in case with Orthodox Judaism, studying and observing Jewish law.

Di wrote:

I'd like to know how single childless women fare in Orthodox Jewish circles though

Good question. Theoretically, it is the man, not the woman, who has the obligation to marry. An unmarried man is considered an incomplete human being. Traditionally, unmarried men do not wear a tallit (prayer shawl) during services, or in some communities wear them but not cover their heads with them. Practically... I don't know.

Here's another bit of poetry written by a Sage of Jerusalem in the second century B.C.E

Quote:

Where there is no wife, a man will wander about and groan…
Children or the building of a city perpetuate a man’s name,
But the irreproachable wife is counted better than both of them…
A friend and a comrade meet opportunely,
But a wife with her husband is better than both of them.
Ben Sira, 26,36,40

Axordil wrote:

The notion of women during their menses being "unclean," for example, and the attendant regulations of staying away from then, not touching them, not even seeing them, comes to mind especially, but there are many others across the religious board

Again, there are different ways of looking at this. I am out of time, so I'll just throw a couple quotes at you before I run.

Bab. Talmud, Niddah 31b wrote:

It was taught: R. Meir used to say: Why did the Torah ordain that a woman should be niddah for seven days? Because being in constant contact with her, he might develop a loathing towards her. The Torah, therefore, ordained: Let her be unclean for seven days in order that she shall be beloved by her husband as she was on the day of her marriage"

Norman Lamm, in A Hedge of Roses wrote:

An analysis of the various species of tum'ah (ritual impurity)reveals that what they have in common is the awareness of death. The most potent source of impurity is, indeed, a corpse or a part thereof. The other kinds of tum'ah imply, indirectly, the suggestion of death, even if only the loss of potential life... A man who suffers from~ "running issue"... is impure. The issue is semen and therefore the loss of potential life; [...]. In the same manner, when a woman is niddah, during her menstruation, she loses an unfertilized ovum, and it is this loss of potential life, this whisper of death, that confers upon her the state of impurity...

There are also implications for fertility. Once the separation is over, the married couple is encouraged to have sexual relationship as often as possible. This cycle leads to the greatest possibility of conception for most couples, as they are joyously reunited at the exact time when the conception is most likely (Theoretically, at least. Fertility cycles are rarely that neat)

However. In the modern Orthodoxy, the other kinds of ritual impurity specified in Leviticus have fallen by wayside, and the only one that affects daily life is the law of niddah, so that only a woman is ever declared impure.

What we have, basically, is a commandment that affects women but that has been discussed and elaborated by men, over millennia.

Frelga:

I once observed (in my younger and even more pretentious days) that the interpretive space, as it were, in which Judaism operates is bounded but infinite in nature. Every time I hear someone like you, who knows of what they speak, discussing the long intellectual history of the Jews, and the depth of thought therein, I see a bit of that infinite variety again...and I am grateful.

Just wanted to comment on the wives submitting to their husbands verse, which is Ephesians 5:22. That verse has been so perverted and twisted that it has virtually lost all meaning. It's taken by some far to literally, and others use it as ammunition to say how can this religion be taken seriously.

In the biblical concept of marriage, it is not a commandment of some type that wives must submit. It is more an understanding of how marriage is the creation of a new whole, that of husband and wife. It's a statement of love. In other words, if you love your husband enough to marry him, why would you not WANT to submit to him. It's not a statement of "shut your mind off and obey woman." It's a statement of "you're in this partnership now, and you have to do your part." Just as a few verses later the suggestion for the husband is to be willing to die to protect your wife.

These are not literal statements of "you must do this or you're not a good Christian." They are a discusion of the love that goes into a marriage and how closely tied God wants a married couple to be. So much so that they would submit to one another and die for one another.

Sorry to exit my self-imposed symposium lurkdom, but discussion of that verse always annoys me. I suggest a reading of all of ephesians 5 to at least put it in context, although some translations miss the bigger picture...

hal--

Interesting reading, and much more contextual, I agree. This passage actualy doesn't bother me; nor does the comparison of Christ to the husband to the head, and the church to the wife to the body. There is a deeper truth being touched on in both cases.

S_O--

Sorry I missed your post first time around! The women have their own "place" in Lakota society for the same reason men have one (the sweat lodge): it's a place of purification (and the Lakota were far from alone in this). Turn it around and you have the reason why women weren't thought to NEED sweat lodges--their bodies purified themselves on their own without help.