Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions

[cleanhippie]

Abstract
The status of women in society is very diverse worldwide. Among many important traits associated with the differentiation of gender inequality is religion, which itself must be regarded as a fluid concept with interpretations and practices ‘embedded’ and thus varying with respect to cultural and historical relations. Admitting the complexity of the issues, some religious norms and traditions can contribute to the formation of gender inequalities and to subordinate the role of women in society. Using an exploratory quantitative analysis, the influence of religiosity on gender inequality in social, economic and political spheres is examined. Three categories of states have emerged from the analysis: (a) states where the majority of inhabitants are without religious affiliation, which display the lowest levels of gender inequality; (b) Christian and Buddhist societies, with average levels of gender inequality; and (c) states with the highest levels of gender inequality across the observed variables, whose inhabitants adhere to Islam and Hinduism

http://www.academia.edu/13490676/Religion_and_gender_inequality_The_status_of_women_in_the_societies_of_world_religions

[guillaumeb]

1. And from the conclusion:

Following these analytical procedures, we believe that we have answered the two key questions raised at the outset in the Introduction, in an affirmative manner. Even so, we do acknowledge that the situation we have examined is extremely complex, such that these conclusions should be taken in the exploratory manner in which they have been presented.

What I read from this is that there is no real conclusion, merely that more study is needed.

If we take into consideration the strengthening modernisation and liberalisation of the world as part of the processes of globalisation and their associated “westernisation” (Gunewardene, Huon and Zheng, 2001), it can be expected that religious societies will eventually become more accommodating to gender equality, because traditional patriarchal structures will start to wane.

And what I read here is that the main obstacle to gender inequality is not religion, but patriarchy.

Despite this, women should take more interest in religious doctrines and participate in the formulation of new interpretations. Under such influences, religious institutions might undergo reforms more favourable to gender equality (Gross, 1994). Muslim and Hindu societies are expected to undergo the most significant changes in order to achieve this. But changes can occur in the opposite direction as well, due to the rise of religious fundamentalism and post-secularism (Sturm, 2013).

So religion can be modified to provide for gender inequality?

Even in the more liberal Christian and Buddhist societies, progress towards absolute gender equality has not reached its final destination. Civil societies and governments should support gender equality and economic emancipation, provide equal access to education, and strive for an increased participation of women in politics. This might strengthen democratic principles in relation to gender equality, to the benefit of society as a whole.

What is interesting to me is that in the position of "more gender equal" societies, the rich European countries that benefited the most from colonialism ranked highest, and the Middle East, which has suffered greatly from colonial interference and theft, rank very low.

It sounds to me like colonialism and patriarchy are to blame, not religion.

[trotsky]

2. Why of course you would find religion utterly blameless.

At least the rest of us can honestly acknowledge the variety of factors involved.

[guillaumeb]

3. And what of my comments about patriarchy?

A careful reading of my comments would not show any statement that religion, in the sense of the organization, is blameless.

[trotsky]

4. Meaningless when you dismiss the role of such an obvious factor.

How can you even separate religion and patriarchy? Which came first? How do you know? When would you consider the patriarchal themes embedded in so many religions to be a part of the religion? Never?

[guillaumeb]

6. Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect.

Patriarchy is the foundation of most societies. If patriarchy wishes to use any belief system, that system will be modified by the patriarchs to support the concept of patriarchy. But that modified belief system is not necessarily an indictment of the original belief system, nor is it an indictment of belief.

Another factor in the comparison is wealth, and the essential role of colonialism and imperialism in the concentration of that wealth. What I hear from you is a willingness to ignore every factor and concentrate on the role of religion.

[trotsky]

10. And perhaps you are.

Let us imagine a religion was created to perpetuate the patriarchy. Its teachings of male superiority are then drilled into the minds of children for centuries. The original patriarchical society that invented the religion is long gone, but the ideas persist, and have been given a divine foundation on which to continue on. Is it not the religion continually creating and perpetuating the patriarchy then?

And to answer your silly attempt at trying to turn the tables, may I suggest you take a look at the name of this particular group? I don't dismiss the other factors, but here is the most appropriate place on DU to discuss the role of religion, and the attempts by those like yourself who wish to whitewash history.

[guillaumeb]

12. A terrible example that you obviously chose to make your argument.

When you wrote:

Let us imagine a religion was created to perpetuate the patriarchy. Its teachings of male superiority are then drilled into the minds of children for centuries.

that is an obvious straw man type fallacy. Imagine instead a religion that talks of equality between the sexes. I will call that religion Christianity, but I could have called it Islam. Imagine then that the dominant interests in the society, in this case a patriarchal society, wish to reframe that religion to support their own needs. We then have a belief system that, not coincidentally, supports what the rulers need.

In the whitewashing history category, as long as you raised the issue, why are you ignoring capitalism and colonialism in your remarks? Given your DU name, this refusal to condemn these two systems is interesting.

[trotsky]

14. Terrible from your perspective, no doubt...

because it introduces the reality of gray areas into your little black-and-white narrative.

And again regarding the other factors, I call your attention to the name of this group. You appear to be desperately grasping at this point. While it is amusing watching you struggle, it is not an effective use of my time. (Hint: try using the term "straw man" accurately.)

[guillaumeb]

15. Masterfull evasion. But that is all that it is.

No attempt to focus on anything but religion, or more accurately your hatred for religion.

[trotsky]

16. If that's what you take away from this,

your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought. Good day.

[Lordquinton]

23. Christianity and Islam are based on Judaism

and if we read the old testament, it's not exactly a stunning example of feminist values. And neither on their own really come out that great for women, even if we include the "For it's time" argument, which requires selective reading of one end, and gross misrepresentation of the other.

[guillaumeb]

26. I look at the three Abrahamic religions as a continuum.

While none of the three stands as a stunning example of feminist values, you are judging belief systems dating from about 5000BCE to 622CE by 2016 values.

Judging by 2016 values and awareness, 1951 in the US is not a stunning example either. Nor was 1851. And by 2051 this era may also be seen as the last gasp of patriarchy.

Proof to me that belief systems, like life forms, evolve.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Objection: Relevance.

There's a reason you'd need to imagine this religion. It's because this religion doesn't exist.

I could imagine a religion that says everyone gets a steak and a handjob on the third Thursday of every month, but it doesn't fucking matter because no one actually professes to follow this religion, and if no one professes to follow it then it ain't fucking germane to current events. End of story.

You speak as if there is a "true" religion floating in somewhere in outer space like a fucking platonic ideal, a pure religion that everyone who professes faith in something but acts in a way you find displeasing conveniently fails to grasp. But there is no realm of ideal forms, and there is no "true" form of Christianity, or any other religion.

Whether religion made man sexist or man made religion sexist is completely and utterly beside the fucking point. The question Trotsky, myself, and practically everyone else here raises, is not whether "religion" -- a concept totally devoid of agency -- makes people do bad things, but whether or not bad ideas couched in scripture are given longevity and durability they might not otherwise enjoy. We question whether these bad ideas, if given religious justification, might limit inhibitions in those already inclined to favor them, or dissuade those who find them distasteful from criticizing them outright.

But, apparently, these are unreasonable questions to ask. Because you can imagine something.

[trotsky]

27. Damn.

Well fucking stated, friend.

[guillaumeb]

28. Further objection: you are not speaking to my point at all.

I never talk about a "true" religion. There is belief and there is non-belief. I also do not rank belief above or below non-belief. I try not to judge.

But to your second point, about a belief system giving longevity to bad ideas, yes I agree with you. I would call that belief system patriotism, as manifested in a nation state. And that belief in a country leads people into wars, and endless fighting, and competition for land and resources. But it also leads people to band together, and work together.

But language is also used to divide people, as is skin color, and religion. Anything can be used as a means of dividing people, but the same things also function as methods of unification.

I do not feel that any belief system is one thing only. All can be used for good and bad.

[trotsky]

29. I'm glad you have come around.

So religion CAN be part of the problem. I'm proud of your progress.

[guillaumeb]

30. I am glad that you are glad.

But I am where I was when I first posted here a year or so ago. While I am a person of faith, I ask to be judged by my actions. "By their actions shall you know them" is an excellent credo.

[trotsky]

31. Aw, that's cute.

Your position changed in this very thread, but if you want to believe you haven't changed in a year (impressive - must be nice being perfect and not ever having to change your opinion!), you go right ahead. Whatever belief gets you through the night.

[trotsky]

33. Your armchair psychoanalysis skills are severely lacking, I'm afraid.

And if you aren't angry that institutions such as the Catholic Church are actively working to take away medical care options, reproductive choice, and freedom to marry from ALL human beings, then I truly feel sorry for you.

You made a valiant (if trite) attempt to dismiss me as an "angry atheist." You did the best you could. Better luck next time - I wish you success in your growth.

BTW - if you are truly interested in why an atheist might be angry, you could read this:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

[guillaumeb]

34. First, an apology. I am not qualified at all to speak professionally on this.

What I wrote was my feelings. No matter what my personal feelings, I should have kept them personal. I hope and intend to not do this type of response again. I try to write each post politely, and without insulting language. I do not always succeed.

Now to the blog:

I agree with the comments. In my view they are justified because, in my opinion, they are mainly correct. It is unfortunate, but many people feel that because they truly believe something, whatever that something may be, that proves that the something is true. Religious belief is a source of much of this. But so is patriotism. And language. And color. All of these differences are cause for division, conflict, and anger.

But, as I rather inelegantly pointed out in my previous post, I feel that anger, while an understandable response, is not a viable long term strategy. I have witnessed many confrontations between people over many matters. When shouting starts reasoning stops. If I am on one corner shouting about belief while you are shouting about non-belief on another corner, what is accomplished? Raising blood pressure perhaps?

One of my personal heroes was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. No matter his inner feelings, he treated his opponents with courtesy and respect, and with non-violence. He based his philosophy on his Christian faith, but I personally know a number of atheists who behave much the same way for reasons that have nothing to do with a deity. I have had numerous discussions with these atheists about belief. We agree to disagree, but without anger. Perhaps because, working together in a Church based social justice group, we know each other in a way that DU does not allow for.

But I also know one atheist, have known him for over 39 years, who has had significant family issues because of his non-belief. And that is terrible, that a family can be divided in that way. And he cannot be the only one with this situation.

As to this particular post, my contention is that religion is one of many causes that lead to social issues. Racism, capitalism, poverty, sexism, homophobia, and patriarchy are also significant issues. Certain posters here seem to ignore all the other issues and focus on religion as the presumed prime reason for social ills.

Guillaume B

[cleanhippie]

35. "Certain posters here seem to ignore all the other issues and focus on religion as the presumed..."

Certain posters here seem to ignore all the other issues and focus on religion as the presumed prime reason for social ills.

This IS the Religion forum, where the religious aspects of these issues are discussed, right?

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. "Certain posters here..."

Demand we acknowledge all the good and wonderful things religious people do whenever we dare criticize the institution of religion. And if you refuse to play this moronic game of quid-pro-quo, you're a bigot.

[guillaumeb]

38. I make no such demands. But I reiterate that when there are multiple factors

that are in play, please discuss all of them. Most societies have multiple forces at play. The US is definitely a patriarchal, militaristic, capitalist, racist society that also claims to be very religious. If any one poster ignores every factor except religion, and only talks about the evils of religion to the exclusion of all other factors, I might feel that the poster is somewhat obsessive about the evil of religion.

And to state that this is the "religion" group ignores the fact that there is an "atheists/agnostics" group that is well suited to discussion about the negatives about the concept of religion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. You do realize that not bringing something up is not the same as ignoring it, right?

Of course you do.

[guillaumeb]

40. And if you are not ignoring the other factors, please link me to your other posts

wherein you discuss these other factors.

Thanking you in advance for the links I am,

Sincerely,

Guillaume B

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Fuck no.

Mostly because I lack both the time and the inclination, but also because you have a mouse and an internet connection and there is already one example here in this very fucking thread. Scroll up.

If that doesn't satisfy you, feel free to post something about an overtly religious person doing something horrible supposedly in the name of religion and I will happily discuss the matter in painful, painful detail.

[guillaumeb]

44. What you actually said up thread:

First:

There's a reason you'd need to imagine this religion. It's because this religion doesn't exist.

I could imagine a religion that says everyone gets a steak and a handjob on the third Thursday of every month, but it doesn't fucking matter because no one actually professes to follow this religion, and if no one professes to follow it then it ain't fucking germane to current events. End of story.

You speak as if there is a "true" religion floating in somewhere in outer space like a fucking platonic ideal, a pure religion that everyone who professes faith in something but acts in a way you find displeasing conveniently fails to grasp. But there is no realm of ideal forms, and there is no "true" form of Christianity, or any other religion.

Whether religion made man sexist or man made religion sexist is completely and utterly beside the fucking point. The question Trotsky, myself, and practically everyone else here raises, is not whether "religion" -- a concept totally devoid of agency -- makes people do bad things, but whether or not bad ideas couched in scripture are given longevity and durability they might not otherwise enjoy. We question whether these bad ideas, if given religious justification, might limit inhibitions in those already inclined to favor them, or dissuade those who find them distasteful from criticizing them outright.

But, apparently, these are unreasonable questions to ask. Because you can imagine something.

I will briefly summarize this response as religion=bad things

Second:

Demand we acknowledge all the good and wonderful things religious people do whenever we dare criticize the institution of religion. And if you refuse to play this moronic game of quid-pro-quo, you're a bigot.

So your responses range from religion=bad things to religion=more bad things

Got it. Thanks.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. Are you really incapable of following your own train of thought?

You accused me of believing religion the only contributing factor to instances of intolerance or cruelty, and of neglecting other factors. I provided a post in which I make clear my belief that this contribution is limited. Your retort is that I am ignoring other factors because I think religion is bad?



Look, this is getting tedious, so I'll put this into very small sentences as to mitigate the chance you'll get lost again.

1) I think the net influence of religion on society is generally negative.
2) I don't think religion is the only negative influence on society.
3) Above, I made clear my thoughts on the limitation of religious influence, admitting, ipso facto that there are other forces at play.

Try reading this more than once before you hit "Post my reply!"

[trotsky]

49. "I will briefly summarize this response as religion=bad things"

I'm afraid this proves you haven't really understood what's been said.

Again, here's the relevant paragraph:

Whether religion made man sexist or man made religion sexist is completely and utterly beside the fucking point. The question Trotsky, myself, and practically everyone else here raises, is not whether "religion" -- a concept totally devoid of agency -- makes people do bad things, but whether or not bad ideas couched in scripture are given longevity and durability they might not otherwise enjoy. We question whether these bad ideas, if given religious justification, might limit inhibitions in those already inclined to favor them, or dissuade those who find them distasteful from criticizing them outright.

If what you get out of that is "religion = bad things," I don't know if there is any point for you to participate in the conversation.

[guillaumeb]

37. If you will link me to your other posts that discuss the other factors

we can continue that discussion. But when there may be a dozen different causes for the thing that you are discussing, and you only point out one thing, I might ask why.

[trotsky]

41. Your apology is accepted.

As to the focus on the religious factors, I once again call attention to the fact that we are currently posting in the Religion group.

Would you be so bold as to visit a feminist group and scold its posters for not addressing factors other than equality of women?

How about visiting the LGBT* group and bemoaning the lack of posts that focus on income inequality?

See what I'm getting at?

[guillaumeb]

43. Thanks.

But what I told two other posters here is that if a poster focuses exclusively on the religious aspect of problems while refusing to discuss other aspects, does that not lead people to believe that the poster only sees the role of religion as an exclusively negative thing?

And as to the specifics of this post, again I point out that in my opinion poverty and colonialism are far more responsible for these problems rather than the innate negativity of all forms of religious belief.

[trotsky]

48. No one is "refusing" to do anything, and you should really stop with that meme.

We're talking about the religious factor because this is the Religion group. Read my other examples again and tell me if you would berate posters in those groups for not talking about other factors that impact their issues.

I am sorry that not everyone views religion as some pure and noble idea that inspires good things and only when corrupted or deviated from the ideal is tangentially responsible for bad things.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. This conversation is crazier than a bag of cats.

First, "religion is not to blame."

Then it's, "u guise are ignoring other factors".

Then it's, "u think religion is teh bad".

Then it's, "u refuse to talk about x, y, and z!"

Either someone has anterograde amnesia or all of this bullshit really isn't about what they're saying it's about. In fact, it sounds to me like someone's butt hurt because they think someone is trying to take their binkie away from them.

[rug]

45. Your analagy failed.

If you want an analogy that fits, start a MRA thread in HoF.

Let me know the result.

[Heddi]

51. Where Can I sign up for this religion

I like steak and handjobs, Not necessarily in that order.

Also, super great post btw

[Act_of_Reparation]

52. Blasphemer!

I quote you 2 Wankings 15:55:

"Put not thine pork before thine beef, for to choke thine bishop before thou pleaseth thine tongue and sate thine belly is an abomination before the LORD."

Always with the catches, these religions.

[Major Nikon]

47. Sounds just like "guns don't kill people"

[guillaumeb]

53. Guns can be used, by someone, to kill people. They do not self-kill. eom

[Major Nikon]

54. Sure, that's exactly how the ammosexual "guns don't kill people" line goes

Which is nothing more than a bullshit talking point which makes a mindbogglingly stupid, albeit factual, fact that the tool used to do the killing isn't capable of sentience while conveniently dodging the reality that it makes the act of killing a lot more efficient.

Do I really need to go into explaining the parallel between this nonsense and your apologetics?

[guillaumeb]

55. There is a difference between apologetics and clarity.

My family is Quebecker. We do not have the same gun fascination and fetishization that so many US citizens seem to have.

[Major Nikon]

56. I'm not sure all apologetics would agree

But I certainly do. There is a difference between apologetics and clarity. The latter implies your argument, which certainly falls within the realm of apologetics, has been made more clear and I'm not willing to accept that.

Pointing out that religion itself can't be blamed for the ills of society because it's incapable of acting on its own offers no more useful information than "guns don't kill people".

[guillaumeb]

57. People who wish to dominate use all types of tools.

Religion, patriotism, patriarchy, guns, etc. Whatever it takes to express and continue dominance.

Any belief system can be and has been used to justify violence and inequality. But the inequality is not generally inherent in the belief system. That is my point.

[Major Nikon]

58. Sure, and they will also tend to gravitate towards the tools which are most efficient in doing so

Which is why inequality most certainly is inherent to pretty much all belief systems. There would be little point without it. As Marx described, it's the opiate of the masses. It's no coincidence major organized religion emerged during a time when they would have the greatest impact dominating the largest groups of people.

[Lordquinton]

22. Well, then let's go after the Patriarchs!

[guillaumeb]

25. When I saw the title, I hoped you would post this. Thank you.

[TygrBright]

5. Colonialism and Religion are both tools effectively appropriated by patriarchy.

Almost ALL of the world's major religions and a good many of the older minor faiths are entirely constructs of patriarchy.

Religion is like the guns in America and the epidemic of violence and mass murder. Without guns, there would still be violence, and possibly the occasional mass murder, but the rate would drop dramatically.

Religion facilitates oppression and dehumanization by patriarchy WAY more effectively than trying to do it with secular social tools.

Colonialism is bound up with both religion AND patriarchy. Among the few matriarchal or equity-based social constructs we have information on, there is virtually no colonialist or manifest destiny-type social movement.

It's rather disingenuous to say "blame the ideological construct, not the tools of the ideological construct."

To disempower patriarchy we have to work it from BOTH ends, and that means calling out religion to attend to its role in dehumanizing half the species, and change itself (ideally but very idealistically) or face imposed restrictions on its ability to implement its dehumanizing practices and roles in civilized societies.

Ditto the colonialist mindset.

opinionatedly,
Bright

[guillaumeb]

8. I just read your excellent comments after posting #6.

But I would disagree in the sense that, when you write:

Religion facilitates oppression and dehumanization by patriarchy WAY more effectively than trying to do it with secular social tools.

I would reverse it and say that patriarchy uses religion, and patriotism, which is a national religion, to facilitate oppression. The onus here is on the patriarchal system that needs such tools.

And I was going to include a comment about matriarchal societies but I deleted it.

But again, a patriarchal society will use any tools it needs to justify its existence and desirability, and inevitability.

[TygrBright]

17. Indeed, patriarchy will use whatever works.

But history shows that religion works really, REALLY well.

It's like saying "someone determined to kill will do so even if we take their guns away."

It's damn' unlikely you'd get away with walking into a mall and killing a dozen people with a blade or a garotte.

Patriarchies invent religions as tools of their agenda: "God sez people with penises get THIS, and people with vaginas get THAT."

Patriarchy appropriates the power of Divinity to impose the patriarchal agenda through the codification of theologies that demand adherence to patriarchal models.

Part of the problem is vocabulary, of course. When we say "religion" are we making it a stand-in for belief itself, or for a particular type of internalized faith? Or are we using it in the sense of "organized theologically-circumscribed system of orthodoxy for social behavior"?

In the latter sense, it is virtually impossible to separate religion from patriarchy, because such systems have been constructed entirely as tools of patriarchal power. Down to the most fundamental human-constructed theological underpinnings, they represent the patriarchal agenda and mindset.

Do many, perhaps most, religions ALSO have elements that transcend such human-imposed agendas? Perhaps. I certainly believe so, but that doesn't make any religion as a totality transcend its patriarchal form and function.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. As a believer, my subjective experience will naturally differ from other believers' and certainly from non-believers'.

There is no "objective fact" to be established, here.

pacifically,
Bright

[guillaumeb]

18. And as agreement, but also modifying,

Remove the word religion and substitute patriotism, which is state religion, and all of your comments apply equally well. People who are in power will use any levers to increase that power. Sometimes the lever is religion/faith/belief. That belief can be belief in a particular vision of the ideal country, or the ideal political system.

But while it is difficult to separate religion from patriarchy, it has been done in the US and other places in the world.

As a male believer, patriarchy is something that influences my responses. How could it not? I was raised in a patriarchal society. But I am ultimately responsible for my actions and I blame only myself when I behave badly.

So I think our disagreement is minor. Where belief is concerned there can be no factual proof.

[TygrBright]

19. Could you say more about this, specifically?

"...while it is difficult to separate religion from patriarchy, it has been done in the US"

I live in the US. This is a state based on a patriarchal governing model (an Enlightenment-era modified trope on Greek representative democracy,) using a patriarchal economic structure (free-market capitalism) and with a culture heavily reliant on and shaped by a number of major theologies that are patriarchal in origin and still heavily patriarchal in current practice.

What is this "separation" of which you speak? The Constitutional nod to a structural dichotomy in influence? That may separate some religious influence from the operations of the state, but it emphatically does not make any religion less patriarchal in theology or practice.

Indeed, I think a credible case could be made for that very separation having sparked a strong backlash reliant on the very patriarchal elements of those religions feeling most butthurt by their sense of threat from counter-patriarchal evolution in public policy and culture.

confusedly,
Bright

[guillaumeb]

20. My fault. I was speaking specifically about First Peoples/First Nations

and not about the US.

The Iroquois Confederacy is one example of a society with far more equitable social roles.
http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/html/iroquoiswoman.htm

Sorry for the understandable confusion arising from my failure to be more specific.

[TygrBright]

21. ah, okay, thank you.

Iroquois social customs and other less-toxic models of patriarchal thinking provide some useful compare and contrast for a post-patriarchal concept.

Matriarchy is not inherently superior to patriarchy. Matriarchal social models have appeared generally less damaging to those who live within them, but I am not sure they would be so, if applied broadly in a complex and diverse cultural and economic environment.

Any model that relies on physiological characteristics to underlie its assumptions about who should be doing what is vulnerable to becoming oppressive.

thoughtfully,
Bright

[Major Nikon]

59. As is pretty much everything else

Emerging civilizations couldn't exist without a patriarchal structure that required the males to defend and the females to rear the next generation.

There's really no need to impose restrictions on organized religion and I think that would simply have the opposite effect from what's intended. I'd be happy if we just stopped subsidizing it and destroy the myth that organized religion is a net positive to society.

[rug]

7. Religion explains the difference between Sweden and Aghanistan.

Right?

[guillaumeb]

9. No Rug, the difference between Sweden and Afghanistan is:

Ikea furniture is readily available in Sweden. It has nothing to do with poverty, oppression, and colonialism.

[rug]

11. Ikea poisons everything.

[guillaumeb]

13. My preference is for antique furniture.

But I agree, that the Ikea example is poisoning the planet.