Do you agree with this quote? I found it on another site...

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you give a few examples?

There's a really good book on this subject called When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone which talks a lot about this subject. Neopaganism comes first and most directly to mind but there are also Native American theologies (especially Iroquois) and modern variants Sikhism, Taoism and branches of Hinduism such as Shaktism. This is just a short list of more well-known religions. There are a lot of religions out there.

 

[Maponos]

The problem of sexism in religion is NOT limited to the Abrahamic faiths.

I think most of us here know that most people who refer to religion really mean Christianity, Judaism and Islam (among others).

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not sure that the Abrahamic God overtly condemns women, but women are clearly marginalized, discriminated against, and made to feel less important than men.

I don't see the Abrahamic God as being responsible for this, but the men He created. We all know about men's egos.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a really good book on this subject called When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone which talks a lot about this subject. Neopaganism comes first and most directly to mind but there are also Native American theologies (especially Iroquois) and modern variants Sikhism, Taoism and branches of Hinduism such as Shaktism. This is just a short list of more well-known religions. There are a lot of religions out there.

Neopaganism is diverse; what kind, specifically? I know of sexism in some of it (and the forms where I don't, I don't know them well enough to say that they're sexism-free) - Aleister Crowley, for instance, had plenty of sexism in his writing.

And many Neopagan groups are deeply racist, which to me isn't really an improvement.


As for Sikhism:

What I would like is change from the inside and recognition from the Sikh community that sexism still occurs openly. Only then will I be able to state with confidence that Sikhism is a feminist religion.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/2010/04/sikhism_-_a_fem/

Taoism pays lip-service to equality, IMO: it asserts that men and women are equal and complementary, but also asserts gender roles for men and women. IMO, "separate but equal" rarely is actually equal.

I don't know enough about Shaktism to say whether their rhetoric actually translates to real-world equality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think most of us here know that most people who refer to religion really mean Christianity, Judaism and Islam (among others).

We do? I don't know this.

Why don't you ask the person you quoted what was meant instead of jumping to conclusions?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Neopaganism is diverse; what kind, specifically? I know of sexism in some of it (and the forms where I don't, I don't know them well enough to say that they're sexism-free) - Aleister Crowley, for instance, had plenty of sexism in his writing.

And many Neopagan groups are deeply racist, which to me isn't really an improvement.


As for Sikhism:


http://www.thefword.org.uk/2010/04/sikhism_-_a_fem/

Taoism pays lip-service to equality, IMO: it asserts that men and women are equal and complementary, but also asserts gender roles for men and women. IMO, "separate but equal" rarely is actually equal.

I don't know enough about Shaktism to say whether their rhetoric actually translates to real-world equality.

Imo it seems like you're lumping all branches of a religion and all members of a religion into believing the same things in order to say that the religion itself has sexist or racist views. There are racist and sexist people in all walks of life, but that doesn't change that plenty of people have found within their religions that they are permitted to truly be free of either.
Hell, I think Dawkins has some very disturbing views about women as well, and would bridle as much for an outsider trying to lump me in with him as an atheist. I'm sure plenty of Neopagans feel the same about lumping them in with Crowley, or for all Taoists or Sikhists to be lumped into one article's seemingly little touch on the diversity of their beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

The "sexist religions" would answer that they are not discriminating against women, but just trying to maintain the different social roles God ordained.
Each sex has specific duties and obligations toward the other and specific social roles. God knows what's best for society.
It cuts both ways -- is the man's role as provider and protector anti-male discrimination?

I'm not discriminating against my Prius when I don't take it off road like my Jeep. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that these vehicles were designed for different purposes.

(Note -- I'm playing devil's advocate here, so hold the ad homs please.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Imo it seems like you're lumping all branches of a religion and all members of a religion into believing the same things in order to say that the religion itself has sexist or racist views. There are racist and sexist people in all walks of life, but that doesn't change that plenty of people have found within their religions that they are permitted to truly be free of either.
Hell, I think Dawkins has some very disturbing views about women as well, and would bridle as much for an outsider trying to lump me in with him as an atheist. I'm sure plenty of Neopagans feel the same about lumping them in with Crowley, or for all Taoists or Sikhists to be lumped into one article's seemingly little touch on the diversity of their beliefs.

Did you miss where I said "Neopaganism is diverse"?

I gave Crowley only as one example. I recognize that not all Pagans give weight to his writings - there's no one person, text or belief system that all Pagans follow, which is why I asked you to specify - but some do. He's representative of enough Neopaganism that he discounts the claim that Neopaganism as a whole is sexism-free.

You were the one who lumped Neopaganism all together in the first place. If you want to talk about specific types of Neopaganism, feel free to say which ones.

As for Dawkins and atheism:

- Dawkins doesn't speak for atheism, or even for a subset of atheists (other than the Richard Dawkins Foundation, I suppose). He's not an "atheist pope" and his writings aren't scripture.

- Atheism doesn't have to be communal in the sense that religion does.

- In the atheist communities that do exist, sexism is acknowledged and being worked on. The fact that these communities don't have institutional dogma makes them much more able to address the problem than those religious organizations where dogma requires or perpetuates sexism.

 

[Father Heathen]

"I'm a guy and I feel bad for women because every religion I've known was sexist in some way. If God was real, he shouldn't condemn someone because of their...gender..."

Religions say far more about the cultures from which they originate than they do any actual god.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"I'm a guy and I feel bad for women because every religion I've known was sexist in some way. If God was real, he shouldn't condemn someone because of their...gender..."

I am from a religion which accepts a creatrix as well as a gender-less source in addition to male creators.

 

[DawudTalut]

How do you discern the true form of a religion if not from the writings or books?

Peace be on you.
Three things should be seen;
1- What does a religion say about God? --- i.e. His Oneness, Power, Knowledge, Perfection, Grandeur, Chastisement, Mercy, and other necessities, and properties of being Deity.

2- What does that religion say about the self of human and its teaching about usual human behavior,
=and whether there is anything that stands in the way of uniting the people in the bond of mutual relationship?
=or, does it teach him good morals,
= or does it drag him to shameless acts or result in such acts, and negates inborn modesty ?
= It should not have any teaching against common law of nature,
= It should not have any teaching which could not be practiced or result in dangers,
= It should not lack any teaching which is important to stop discord,
= It should teach such directives which declare God as grand benevolent and make strong tie with Him and take one from light from darkness ,and take one from ignorance to Presence and Remembrance,


3-That religion must not present a fake God or a God who lives only in stories of the olden days.
This God should not resemble with a dead, because believing such God due to good faith, not because He disclosed Himself. Believing such God will be like doing favour to Him. The God Whose Powers are not felt, and He does not show signs of Him being alive, believing Him is useless.

[Based on writing of Ahmadiyya-Muslim Promised Messiah -- The Mahdi (on whom be peace), Book Nasim e Dawat, vol 19 Ruhani Khazaen]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The problem of sexism in religion is NOT limited to the Abrahamic faiths.

Perhaps not, but it is something they seem to specialise in.

 

[Deeje]

"I'm a guy and I feel bad for women because every religion I've known was sexist in some way. If God was real, he shouldn't condemn someone because of their...gender..."

Since time immemorial the sexes have had their gender roles and no one complained until relatively recently. When God created the woman as a "complement" of her husband, he was indicating that she completed him. In her support role, she was a vital part of the arrangement. He was incomplete without her. As a team, they balanced out a family beautifully. When gender roles are clearly defined and value is seen in each, we get to understand that headship is not meant to be dictatorship. Everyone answers to someone in the big picture.....it goes something like this....
1 Cor 11:3:
"I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God"

Like it or not, for things to run smoothly, there needs to be a chain of command, but not in a dictatorial way. Imagine if there were two drivers in one vehicle and both had control of the vehicle? It works better with just one driver....the front seat passenger can be a helpful navigator. It is only when the gender roles are skewed that we see problems. That happened a long time ago when men began to imagine that they were the boss.....there was no "boss" in God's arrangement....but there was a manager whose job was to delegate and bear responsibility for the smooth running of a family unit.

Headship is what Christ had over the congregation of his disciples. It was loving, kind, considerate, and took all things into consideration before decisions were made. If we can understand how Christ treated his disciples, then we will know that women were NEVER supposed to be treated with disrespect by their husbands or anyone else. Christ also has a head over him, but it is the same loving and respectful relationship we see promoted in the Bible.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Perhaps not, but it is something they seem to specialise in.

Deejees answer is much better than mine!

There may be an obvious reason for a 2>5.? year old religion being male dominated or as you guys say sexist Mr Spiny. That reason is the world was male dominated way wayyy, wayyyyyyy, back then, and most people loved it. Women married off to religious types were not bad off, at least by paleolithic standards. Men were men back then and women really needed knuckle dragger's back in the days just after we crawled out of caves. I mean where could a woman find a man protector to fight off saber toot, er tooth rabbits, and do other man specific chores? Also its a fact women were revered in some religions as fertility goddesses, or maybe baby mills. I am not sure if LGBT had chapters back then. In any case I hope the forum forgives me for replying tongue in cheek, just trying to make us smile.....................

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There may be an obvious reason for a 2>5.? year old religion being male dominated or as you guys say sexist Mr Spiny. That reason is the world was male dominated way wayyy, wayyyyyyy, back then, and most people loved it.

But is the fact that a religion originated in an ancient patriarchal culture a good reason for marginalising women in modern times? I don't think so.

 

[ak.yonathan]

What exactly is meant by 'condemn'? Are you talking about the gender roles that the religions prescribe to? I don't see that as 'condemning'.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Buddha was the first to ordain women in India.

Accepting a woman as a nun is not the same as declaring they can attain buddha-hood. But I accept that the point is debatable:
http://www.academia.edu/4777081/Women_and_Enlightenment_in_Theravada_Buddhism

Hinduism is pagan ?

Search the Hindu DIR on this forum for the word pagan in a title to find opinions in support of that classification. Again it's debatable: the long resistance to Buddhism and then to Islam has lead to non-pagan features entering Hinduism.

 

[Quintessence]

He's representative of enough Neopaganism that he discounts the claim that Neopaganism as a whole is sexism-free.

Innacuracy of this claim and others you've made about Neopaganisms aside, I don't recall that @ADigitalArtist was suggesting that any of the example groups are "sexism-free." Frankly, it seems to me there is no such thing as a group of people that is sexism-free. There's always going to be some fraction of a group that has it. The question is how systemic it is, and @ADigitalArtist rightly pointed at some examples where systemic sexism is absent. If a group provides equal opportunities to those of any sex, that's a good sign that it lacks systemic sexism compared to say, a religion where only cis-males can be clergy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Innacuracy of this claim and others you've made about Neopaganisms aside,

How is that inaccurate? Are you saying that no Neopagans subscribe to his teachings? You could probably find a few right here on RF.

I don't recall that @ADigitalArtist was suggesting that any of the example groups are "sexism-free."

The quote in the OP says "every religion I've known was sexist in some way." ADigitalArtist was arguing against this. A religion that is not "sexist in some way" is sexism-free.

Frankly, it seems to me there is no such thing as a group of people that is sexism-free. There's always going to be some fraction of a group that has it.

Sounds like you agree with the quote, then.

The question is how systemic it is, and @ADigitalArtist rightly pointed at some examples where systemic sexism is absent.

It's probably a question worth asking, but it wasn't "the question"... i.e. what this thread is about.

If a group provides equal opportunities to those of any sex, that's a good sign that it lacks systemic sexism compared to say, a religion where only cis-males can be clergy.

And there are plenty of Neopagan traditions where this doesn't happen. In some cases, there are "complementary" (i.e. separate but "equal") roles for men and women, in others, men are completely excluded, etc.

Now... I'll say the same thing to you that I said to ADigitalArtist: if you want to talk about individual types of Neopaganism and not just Neopaganism as a whole, feel free to be more specific.

 

[Quintessence]

How is that inaccurate? Are you saying that no Neopagans subscribe to his teachings? You could probably find a few right here on RF.

I think you are significantly overstating the influence Crowley has on contemporary Paganism, in addition to demonstrating a poor understanding of exactly what from his teachings was an influence on portions the movement. The only element that is widely cited is his definition of magic, and... that's it. Perhaps you are confusing/blurring contemporary Paganism with contemporary Western occultism? Some identify with both communities, but they are not the same, and Crowley is pretty unimportant within contemporary Paganism on the whole. He gets far, far more mention and attention in Western occultism. If you want examples of mild sexism within Neopaganism, there are far better examples to cite. Like... frankly, the entire religion of Wicca with it's fixation on male-female, God-Goddess things.

The quote in the OP says "every religion I've known was sexist in some way." ADigitalArtist was arguing against this. A religion that is not "sexist in some way" is sexism-free.

Perhaps do @ADigitalArtist the courtesy of asking them to clarify what they meant? It doesn't seem to me that this is what they intended, but I would ask them or allow them to speak for themselves.

Sounds like you agree with the quote, then.

Presuming this is the case, then I don't see the point of making it about religion if sexism is universal to all humans and all human institutions. I'm skeptical that 100% sexism free is what the OP was going for, given the impossible standard that represents. It'd be a rhetorical or trollish POE of an OP were that the case. It seems you and other contributors to this thread have very different ideas regarding what this thread is about.