Patriarchal Planet

[Tao_Equus]

Following on from something said by PoO on another board I was mulling over the differences between crossover tribes in both Africa and Indonesia that combined a traditional animism with Islam. It struck me that in Africa this was seen to result in brutal herding of and constant supervision of women. Where as in Indonesia women were much better off, though still did the bulk of the work.

In villages and homes across Europe, Asia and North Africa I have consciously sought to observe social customs and it is without doubt a patriarchal world. And it is made so by violence. There are varying degrees and many exceptions but overall men rule with an iron fist.

In the home, the smallest unit of social structure, women can often dominate. But only if the husband is a good man and does not use violence. The use or threat of violence is simple to understand behaviour in Alpha male, or Alpha male wannabe, primates the world over and can indeed be observed in many other species too. So called 'friendly' bottlenose dolphin males form pairs and harass the female to exhaustion then take turns 'raping' her. Nature is far from cute n cuddly.

From the family to the tribe to the society there is a manifestation of actual or implicit violence for a woman to challenge the patriarchal rules. And they are embedded in virtually every religion. They stem so obviously from our evolutionary tale. So is this still valid to us with our wonderful educations and our evolved minds? Are we too many now to persist to use bullying to get our way? Should we accept that for perhaps a billion women across this planet their home is a torturers dungeon? And most importantly of all on this forum, is religion perpetuating it ?

 

[Paladin]

I think to say that religion perpetuates it is slightly off the mark, as the tool doesn't create the work. The key is as you say, the evolved mind.
Ven. Tenzin Kacho once told me a story about a Buddhist nun who used a guided meditation to explain the plight of the nuns in Tibetan monasteries. The Dalai Lama himself was present during the meditaion and according to Ven. Tenzin, he was in tears by the time the meditaion was over.
There are many models used to assess the intellectual, moral development of the human race as Path Of One will attest to. In the models I have looked at it seems the majority of people are still at a fairly low level when it comes to the use of power and gender issues. Of course this is changing all the time, and with it, the religious practice will change as well.

 

[shawn]

Things will and do change.
It is all part of the process.
We may be disgusted with current and past behaviors of some of our fellow residents on this world, but, this too shall pass.
But that is because we make it so.
Why things are this way is a good debate which has been going on for...oh... thousands of years.
Religions play a part, but as paladin mentioned they are the tool.
It seems that the more advanced of our kind use religions as a tool to manipulate the less advanced ones.
Sad, but sometimes can be justified as necessary.

 

[c0de]

@ Inuk


In your analysis did you study the status of women in pre-Abrahamic pagan religions (of Rome and the middle east)?

Christianity, for example, which today is attacked for being patriarchal, was mostly attractive to women in Rome because it improved the standing fairer sex. In fact, it became a major influence on the upper classes of Roman society precisely because the wives of important individuals converted to Christianity and influenced their households. (Christianity, just like any new religious movement, was primarily a middle class phenomenon). Similarly, compare the pagan traditions of the Middle East with the improvements in the status of women that Islam offered. Notice especially the status of property ownership, divorce laws, and spiritual status.

Regarding your decisive question: "is religion perpetuating it?" it seems that the answer to this question is not only a negative, but it would seem that religion (The Abrahamic religions, for the most part) have done more to liberate women and guarantee their freedoms then the mainly pagan ideologies which they replaced. Most importantly, however; as for the contemporary Western liberal materialistic ideology, I am sure there are women even on this forum who would disagree that such a liberalism, is not as "liberating" as advertised. I am sure Dialogue is the Best and Muslimwoman will have some interesting and enlightening perspectives to offer on that front.

 

[citizenzen]

I am a staunch feminist. And I'd love to see conditions for women improve in this world... today.

That said... and I may be venturing off-topic here... I am skeptical of the notion that if women occupied traditional male leadership roles, that life would dramatically different.

I think the problem is ignorance not hormones. And while men seem to exhibit the lions share of this resource, women aren't lagging too far behind.

Is Sarah Palin any improvement over the typical republican male?

Politics has a way of catering to power-hungry egotists. That's not a good thing whether you're a man or a woman.

 

[c0de]

A few clarifications:

I am sure there are women even on this forum who would disagree that such a liberalism, is not as "liberating" as advertised.

That should be "agree"

In your analysis did you study the status of women in pre-Abrahamic pagan religions (of Rome and the middle east)?

Granted the pagan traditions of ancient antiquity would be hard to analyze (although I am sure some will be able to shed light on such ancient cultures as well), I will settle for an analysis of pagan structures of pre-Christian Europe, and pre-Islamic pagan societies in the Middle East.

 

[nativeastral]

Following on from something said by PoO on another board I was mulling over the differences between crossover tribes in both Africa and Indonesia that combined a traditional animism with Islam. It struck me that in Africa this was seen to result in brutal herding of and constant supervision of women. Where as in Indonesia women were much better off, though still did the bulk of the work.

In villages and homes across Europe, Asia and North Africa I have consciously sought to observe social customs and it is without doubt a patriarchal world. And it is made so by violence. There are varying degrees and many exceptions but overall men rule with an iron fist.

In the home, the smallest unit of social structure, women can often dominate. But only if the husband is a good man and does not use violence. The use or threat of violence is simple to understand behaviour in Alpha male, or Alpha male wannabe, primates the world over and can indeed be observed in many other species too. So called 'friendly' bottlenose dolphin males form pairs and harass the female to exhaustion then take turns 'raping' her. Nature is far from cute n cuddly.

From the family to the tribe to the society there is a manifestation of actual or implicit violence for a woman to challenge the patriarchal rules. And they are embedded in virtually every religion. They stem so obviously from our evolutionary tale. So is this still valid to us with our wonderful educations and our evolved minds? Are we too many now to persist to use bullying to get our way? Should we accept that for perhaps a billion women across this planet their home is a torturers dungeon? And most importantly of all on this forum, is religion perpetuating it ?

'a man without a son is a man without a future', dunno who said that but its an aphorism probably fairly widespread in societies throughout the world and indicative of the value placed on the male rather than female.

Patriarchy and androcentrism is now so deeply embedded into the power
structures of societies, its only been in the last generation or so we have seen in the west a real acknowledgement and allowance given to women in power roles [ie in politics and religions, well some]. Although of course women have been given 'special' roles, due to their spiritualness and devotion its always circumscribed with certain boundries or sanctions. Even in Buddhism which you would think totally inclusive 'the desire to be reborn as a man is pervasive among women' [Burma;Tsomo ;1999;'Buddhist women across cultures].

So it's a man's world and some woman like it that way, to be protected blabla..change needs to come from both sides.

Things may only change once men can actually give birth [and l'm sure many would jump at that chance!]. We already have homosexuals, transgenders, transvestites mushrooming everywhere so societies globally are changing; since it is sexuality that is the issue here and the 'feeling' that women are weak minded and too emotional, the serpent that tempts.

Other cultures are behind insofar as female mutilation etc goes; hopefully continued technological development and improved knowledge will help dissipate such horrors.

 

[path_of_one]

I don't think it's an issue of religion as much as economy. When women contribute directly to the household economy in ways that are visible, they tend to have nearly equal rights, property passed from mother to daughter, the capacity to divorce men, and so forth. Additionally, when women remain in households together, such as mother and her daughters, with men marrying in, they tend to have more equal footing.

When these types of conditions are not met, women are viewed more as property than as equals, and rights tend to diminish.

Religion isn't the driver in society. Economics is. Almost every other part of culture, including religion, demonstrates trends and patterns based on economic system.

Our biggest problem is an economic system that has long depended on stratification and inhumane treatment of some people. Those people could be women in non-Western societies, or in Western societies this inhumane treatment is shoved onto the third world population, but whatever way you cut the cake the result is the bulk of people are exploited while a few get far more than they need.

Religion may justify the system, but superstructure rarely drives infrastructure. You want change, you change the forces of production in a society. Ideology will follow suit, and typically lags behind. One great book that demonstrates this process in US history is "True to Her Nature." Very insightful analysis of historical documents, including sermons, parenting books, etc. and the "role of women"-- tracks perfectly to delayed response to changes in the US economy.

ETA as an aside- in hunter-gatherer societies, women generally had relative equality with men, though sometimes did not have as much prestige, which was often afforded for hunters (a generally male activity). However, because women provided 70-80% of the food in a typical foraging society, they had a lot of equality in terms of rights to children, divorce, decision-making, etc. In horticultural societies, women's rights tracks most definitively to property ownership and inheritance, as well as living situation- if a society were organized around mother-daughter, their rights were much more assured than in one organized around father-son. It is not until agriculture and pastoralism that we see widespread inequality and mistreatment of women, and it directly tracks to the divide between public and private spheres and the capacity of women to disengage from direct economic production, visible in society.

If it helps any as a very generalized timeline, foraging societies are generally animistic and shamanic (no full-time religious practitioners, belief in nature and ancestral spirits)- essentially, in these religions, the focus is on nature and ancestors, and all people have the capacity to directly be involved in religion without a mediator. By the time agriculture arrives, religion has morphed into polytheistic and then monotheistic systems with priests- full-time practitioners that are often understood to have religious authority higher than others. God becomes increasingly distant, remote, and unapproachable in religion as the government/State becomes increasingly distant, remote, and unapproachable in the society. Inequalities between gender overlaps with class and power inequality in society in general and perceived inequality between gods and religious practitioners.

When I look at religion, it generally makes perfect sense within the context of the society and economy in which it originated. After that point, over time, members either bend their cultural conditioning to their religion or bend their religion to culture- but it is never static.

I don't really think the answer lies in giving women power, but rather in recognizing the inhumanity and exploitation that is necessarily involved in having power differences.

If we could move beyond a need for power (which is the ability to force others to do your will), that would be an answer. But that answer doesn't begin with society- it must necessarily begin with the individual moving beyond the egoic need for power and then radiate outwards.

As long as we have a human drive for power and possessions, we will have inequality and suffering, no matter who is in charge. In foraging societies, these were minimized due to natural constraints- a highly mobile population cannot hoard things and without economic differentiation and inheritance, it is nearly impossible to exert your will over others (because no one has more resources than another person). Now, we live without those natural constraints, and unfortunately, for the most part, we have not evolved a better emotional-spiritual capacity that would allow us to transcend these qualities, so we create a great deal of suffering in other humans and for other beings. However, it is possible to move beyond these qualities individually and I hope that one day it will be possible to do so socially.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I think to say that religion perpetuates it is slightly off the mark, as the tool doesn't create the work. The key is as you say, the evolved mind.
Ven. Tenzin Kacho once told me a story about a Buddhist nun who used a guided meditation to explain the plight of the nuns in Tibetan monasteries. The Dalai Lama himself was present during the meditaion and according to Ven. Tenzin, he was in tears by the time the meditaion was over.
There are many models used to assess the intellectual, moral development of the human race as Path Of One will attest to. In the models I have looked at it seems the majority of people are still at a fairly low level when it comes to the use of power and gender issues. Of course this is changing all the time, and with it, the religious practice will change as well.

Such a poorly written OP that I expected it to die quietly. But it does raise some big questions.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Things will and do change.
It is all part of the process.
We may be disgusted with current and past behaviors of some of our fellow residents on this world, but, this too shall pass.
But that is because we make it so.
Why things are this way is a good debate which has been going on for...oh... thousands of years.
Religions play a part, but as paladin mentioned they are the tool.
It seems that the more advanced of our kind use religions as a tool to manipulate the less advanced ones.
Sad, but sometimes can be justified as necessary.

I know religion to be a tool, but its more than that, it is also used as a justification, an excuse. It is Patriarchy and its hijacking of religious law and morality that I really want to tackle here. Viewed only as a tool it is misleading and narrowing down the true scope of its ability to cause and effect a perpetuation, even an escalation, of social injustice against minorities, the biggest of which is woman.

 

[Tao_Equus]

@ Inuk


In your analysis did you study the status of women in pre-Abrahamic pagan religions (of Rome and the middle east)?

Christianity, for example, which today is attacked for being patriarchal, was mostly attractive to women in Rome because it improved the standing fairer sex. In fact, it became a major influence on the upper classes of Roman society precisely because the wives of important individuals converted to Christianity and influenced their households. (Christianity, just like any new religious movement, was primarily a middle class phenomenon). Similarly, compare the pagan traditions of the Middle East with the improvements in the status of women that Islam offered. Notice especially the status of property ownership, divorce laws, and spiritual status.

Regarding your decisive question: "is religion perpetuating it?" it seems that the answer to this question is not only a negative, but it would seem that religion (The Abrahamic religions, for the most part) have done more to liberate women and guarantee their freedoms then the mainly pagan ideologies which they replaced. Most importantly, however; as for the contemporary Western liberal materialistic ideology, I am sure there are women even on this forum who would disagree that such a liberalism, is not as "liberating" as advertised. I am sure Dialogue is the Best and Muslimwoman will have some interesting and enlightening perspectives to offer on that front.

Forgive me but I do not really want to be drawn into historical supposition. I am content to look at things as they are today for there are enough examples to be found that remain virtually unchanged for millennia.

That said you appear to have a poor knowledge of the equality woman shared within many pagan societies, including my own Celtic tradition where a queen was as likely to rule as a king, and where we went into battle together side by side. Throughout the early to mid iron age in Europe there is parity in grave sites of importance being for woman. We have few other indicators, and cannot be certain even with all the evidence, but to suppose that Abrahamic religions improved equality for woman is fanciful and based on the most tendentious of evidence. The stories of early Christianity that you allude to have their root firmly in the tale of the Emperor Constantine's mother and a few other high profile bourgeois individuals. I do not believe for a moment them to be representative of the society as a whole. But looking at the history will only muddy the waters here. Lets stick to the present.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I am a staunch feminist. And I'd love to see conditions for women improve in this world... today.

That said... and I may be venturing off-topic here... I am skeptical of the notion that if women occupied traditional male leadership roles, that life would dramatically different.

I think the problem is ignorance not hormones. And while men seem to exhibit the lions share of this resource, women aren't lagging too far behind.

Is Sarah Palin any improvement over the typical republican male?

Politics has a way of catering to power-hungry egotists. That's not a good thing whether you're a man or a woman.

I have met a few female tyrannosaurs in my time. The two most ruthlessly greedy people I have encountered were both female, who controlled men with ease. But here I am hoping to look at the lot of your average man and woman, not the exceptions. Where as the tendency is to view the religion as a tool, I want to explore if it is more than a tool. If the tail is wagging the dog, so to speak.

 

[Tao_Equus]

'

Patriarchy and androcentrism is now so deeply embedded into the power
structures of societies.

This is the nub of it for me. For it seems that is the real heart of what religion is, a system of perpetuation of patriarchy.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I don't think it's an issue of religion as much as economy.

Economy, control of wealth and resources is the reason yes, of course. But religion is not just a tool to achieve this it is a justification for it. And it is really this area I am interested in exploring. And if, on the way, I can help to demonstrate that this is a tool of patriarchal man and man alone, all to the good. One man claiming his will to be gods will to me is patently wrong and the best way to challenge such claims is by demonstrating actual purpose.

I am going to try an dig up some specific examples of real people to illustrate my thinking, so please bear with me on this one.

 

[path_of_one]

Tao- to me, a tool to achieve economic inequality is also a justification of this inequality. I was agreeing with you in terms of religion's place as a justifier of inequality, but qualifying this by explaining that it is not the role of religion as a whole, but rather links between religion and economy that we primarily see after the rise of agriculture and pastoralism, heightens to its peak (in terms of gender inequity) in these modes of production, and begins to wane with the birth of industrialism and post-industrialism. The hangers-on of this sort of fundamentalism refer to the "traditional" family and "traditional" gender roles and by this they mean agricultural-pastoral worldview.

Furthermore, within these societies, women's rights and freedom track strongly to class. Generally speaking, elite women were afforded fewer rights and suffered the most in terms of being treated as possessions, because that class of people had the resources to do so- to sequester their women inside, to dominate their sexuality. Poor women, no matter what the "ideal" of the day, have a history of going to work and making their own way... because they have to.

As for today, religion is a voice in both directions. Fundamentalism may harp about gender roles and the "traditional" family of the 1950s where "Father Knows Best" (but it's a lot of hooey, which "True to Her Nature" makes clear), but then again, the Quakers have long held to gender equality and, more broadly, a program of social justice in general. I don't see much gender equality or freedom in secularism, at least here in the U.S. As a young woman, the media basically tells me that I am a sexual plaything for men- that I should be very concerned about my clothing, makeup, hair, appearance in general. I've seen no difference between religious and non-religious men in how they treat me, and in my home region of Los Angeles it is entirely common to see an older, wealthy man dominate his younger, beautiful bride and it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion may justify it for some, but in a country where economics runs the culture, it is hardly necessary.

I do not excuse the women in this, either. In my country and in my time, women can obtain a higher education, pursue a career, and demand their rights. They can leave abusive relationships. They can make their own way. Some just choose not to, and while one can blame "the media" or "religion" or whatever you wish, the responsibility to take charge of one's own life rests with the self, so long as the law supports it.

Now in other societies where human rights are still in flux and not firmly and legally established, yes, this problem exists. However, the answer generally cannot be in tinkering with religion. Statistics show that the best indicators of women's rights- their control over their own reproduction- tracks most strongly to their ability to control their own household economy and have more options than to be "taken care of" by a man. This does not mean they *will* work outside the home, but that when they are *able to,* their rights generally increase. Whether or not such reproductive control and gender equality is religiously upheld, they will have it nonetheless.

We shouldn't confuse the ideal culture, the worldview (that is depicted in religion) for the real one, what happens in actuality. I say it is most expedient to focus on the reality of what is happening and tinker with culture in the most efficient way- through the economy- and let worldview and religion play catch up. You seem a bit more passionate about ideology than I am; I'm very pragmatic when it comes to looking at what is likely to work in a quest for social justice, and patient with the process.

 

[nativeastral]

Culture is 'made' by the political/religious/economic spheres, ultimately defined by the environ; but so far as subservience of women is concerned they give birth, suckle and [pre contraceptively] naturally 'had' another one once periods start again [after breast feeding in third world societies a year] hence continual child rearing.

Help was at hand due to the extended family and women rallying together but as has been mentioned they still had to fetch water and gather, locally. This is so different from western societies where even the not so rich can bottle feed and be out to work within weeks of childbirth.

So l still think it is the fact that men have the 'freedom' to move around without the shackles of child rearing [though l'd be interested if there is a culture nowadays where it is the men who do this, theres always an exception; wait, it happens here in scotland the lassie goes out to escape,sorry,work, and the [lazy] man prefers to stay at home and 'bond'!]

 

[path_of_one]

Personally, I think it's a problem to talk about child-rearing as "shackles." That's an interpretation, not a given, and one that devalues the joy and the value of early childhood, a frequently female domain.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but my hackles always raise at the type of feminism that puts primary value on "men's work" and then says liberation is women acting like men. That ain't freedom or gender equality, and until men can get pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed, it also isn't very practical. Instead, an equal value on what might be the domain of women out of necessity is to me, a liberation, if it goes along with women having choice in when and how many children they have- that is, control over their own body.

The emphasis, in my opinion, should not be on an idea that men and women are not at all different from each other, because we are. Difference is not inequality unless it is differently valued. It's kind of like skin color being diverse in humans, but it isn't associated with inequality until we make it so.

Personally, as a woman, I do not feel imprisoned by my body's ability to give birth. I feel that it is a lovely thing. I just don't want to be differently valued for this capacity, nor do I want people to assume that my ability to bear children is my primary role as an individual. For some women it is, and for some women it isn't.

There is no necessary connection between raising infants and subservience. We create it to be so. The answer is not in having women not give birth or raise infants, but in according value to every individual equally because of their worth as unique human beings, whatever their purpose is. It is in developing the unique potential of every individual, no matter what this is- because it will be different for everyone. For one woman, perhaps it is to be a doctor. For one man, perhaps it is to be a farmer. For another woman or man, perhaps it is to be a parent. So long as we operate in an economy that uses inequality of value to generate profit, we are stuck in this inhumane and unequal system- not only for gender, but also for class, ethnicity, and all the other identity markers that are used to justify exploitation.

When we can see each human being as life that is valuable in its own right, struggling to reach its potential, then we will stop exploiting others because we will see ourself in them, and they in us.

 

[shawn]

I spent a year at home with our 2 young sons and my wife went to take a college course and I was the recipient of a lot of funny looks in our small town community and much gossip.
But there was no way I was going to hire someone to raise my children.
These days my wife and I work together and have for the past 5 years.
We do stone and tile installations.
And we are the object of amazement to many.
We have heard repeatedly the comments :" they work together so well, I don't know how they do it....and they are not at each others throats..."
etc.
We just get a bit of a chuckle from such things.
We both got married as we liked each others company, so why wouldn't we want to spend all day with each other.
We have worked together for over 5 years now and have been married for near to 18 years.
As you can see I am very interested in equality and I actually do something about it, not just talk a good game.
Kind of tired of all these noisy talkers who do nothing about what they spout off about.

 

[citizenzen]

We both got married as we liked each others company, so why wouldn't we want to spend all day with each other.

Congratulations shawn, that is a great outlook and outcome.

I have only one goal in my life.

When my wife dies (or when I die) I want her to think that of all the decisions she's made in her life, at least she picked the right man to marry.

 

[nativeastral]

Personally, I think it's a problem to talk about child-rearing as "shackles." That's an interpretation, not a given, and one that devalues the joy and the value of early childhood, a frequently female domain.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but my hackles always raise at the type of feminism that puts primary value on "men's work" and then says liberation is women acting like men. That ain't freedom or gender equality, and until men can get pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed, it also isn't very practical. Instead, an equal value on what might be the domain of women out of necessity is to me, a liberation, if it goes along with women having choice in when and how many children they have- that is, control over their own body.

The emphasis, in my opinion, should not be on an idea that men and women are not at all different from each other, because we are. Difference is not inequality unless it is differently valued. It's kind of like skin color being diverse in humans, but it isn't associated with inequality until we make it so.

Personally, as a woman, I do not feel imprisoned by my body's ability to give birth. I feel that it is a lovely thing. I just don't want to be differently valued for this capacity, nor do I want people to assume that my ability to bear children is my primary role as an individual. For some women it is, and for some women it isn't.

There is no necessary connection between raising infants and subservience. We create it to be so. The answer is not in having women not give birth or raise infants, but in according value to every individual equally because of their worth as unique human beings, whatever their purpose is. It is in developing the unique potential of every individual, no matter what this is- because it will be different for everyone. For one woman, perhaps it is to be a doctor. For one man, perhaps it is to be a farmer. For another woman or man, perhaps it is to be a parent. So long as we operate in an economy that uses inequality of value to generate profit, we are stuck in this inhumane and unequal system- not only for gender, but also for class, ethnicity, and all the other identity markers that are used to justify exploitation.

When we can see each human being as life that is valuable in its own right, struggling to reach its potential, then we will stop exploiting others because we will see ourself in them, and they in us.

l am as idealistic as the next, but its been less than 100 years in this free society, Britain, since womens emancipation, and still the percentage of politicians and 'powerful' positions, in economics,banking,religions is really rather small. Yes here we have the freedom 'if we create it to be so', by making compromises and choices [you won't get a job if you are a dedicated mother in a high flying job even if you can afford childcare in some institutions, theres too many 'sick' days, so too much of a problem]

Unfortunately in poorer countries they cannot make a choice, they are shackled within the confines of their cultural heritage, backed up by government legislations and religious sanctions. Of course am generalising, there are powerful women who exploit too, eg voodoo doctors in Africa.

Margaret Thatcher put a lot of people off women in power, but l do think shared equality would change the status quo with regards diplomatic dialogues within world powers; but will some of these 'old fashioned' oligarchies and patriarchs even wish to talk to a female on the same level? Yes its changing but slowly.