Religion and Your Body.

[Demolition Squid]

I just read this interview] with Mona Eltahawy about her new book. Full disclosure - I haven't read the book, but there were some interesting quotes in there which got me thinking. The one which stood out was:

Are all religions misogynistic?
Absolutely, to some degree. All religions, if you shrink them down, are all about controlling women's sexuality... They're obsessed with my vagina. I tell them: stay outside my vagina unless I want you in there.

I don't think this goes far enough.

Whilst it is true that many religions (all? Not sure I'm willing to make that claim because there's probably some which don't - Wicca maybe?) place more restrictions on women than men - especially Islam which is where she's largely coming from - religious dogma exists to tell people how to live their lives. That is literally the point of the exercise, and sexuality is a part of that, so both women and men are told how they should act to be a good (whatever).

It feels like this is a fundamental part of looking to someone else to tell you how to live your life. If you're looking to religion for rules and guidance, do you really have the right to get offended when they start telling you things you don't want to hear?

It just felt particularly odd to me to make the claim that religion is fundamentally misogynistic when, by that logic, it'd in fact be more misanthropic. I'm sure that the implementation of islamic dogma in countries like Saudi Arabia - which she highlights as being part of what formed this opinion - absolutely is misogynistic, but it isn't exactly a picnic for many men, either.

Doesn't it just boil down to the principle that it is fine to make a case for how you 'should' live morally, but the moment it starts to be enforced and inflicted on the unwilling - especially with regards to your body and sexuality - that's when it becomes a problem?

[Reginald Ret]

Yes.
Arguing good, forcing bad.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Religion tells everyone what to do with their bodies. That's why the jews practice circumcision.

[Reginald Ret]

You know, at some point you gotta stop practicing and start doing.

/Seinfeld

[Dubya]

Doesn't it just boil down to the principle that it is fine to make a case for how you 'should' live morally, but the moment it starts to be enforced and inflicted on the unwilling - especially with regards to your body and sexuality - that's when it becomes a problem?

Visit The Infidel With Explanatory Pamphlets?

Seriously, though, that's every major religion you're talking about. Active meddling in the affairs of your neighbor isnt just encouraged, its mandatory if you don't want to get on Gods naughty list.

And human nature being what it is, you'll always have nosy, controlling people getting into or next to positions of power where they can try to make people behave certain ways. Not unlike Kyle's mom on South Park.

And for the mob, er, faithful, it's easier to blame Canada than to set their own personal standards for a number of reasons.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

At the same time, it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the historical role that religion - at least, notably, the religions that come from savannah agriculturists - plays in reducing women to chattel for the purpose of controlling paternity.

[Dubya]

Didnt mean to dismiss that at all. Its the most ugly feature of the generalized meddling I just described.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Didnt mean to dismiss that at all. Its the most ugly feature of the generalized meddling I just described.

Oh, no, not responding to you so much as the OP.

One of the driving forces for the emergence of organized religion is thought to be that with arid-country agriculture came the need to A. make more farm workers, and B. control reproduction so that it is certain that the landowner is the father of his harem's children. This is a basic economic motive.

So, it's not really realistic to dismiss the misogyny aspect as being part of the general misanthropy of organized religions.

[Dubya]

I was going to say, yeah, but that doesn't really matter anymore. Then I remembered the last time I had to watch a talk show. "You ARE the father." Yuck.

Maybe there's a use for repressive religion after all.

I still think all the energy that went/goes into this brother (and sister) keeping would be better spent on teaching people to both take responsibility for their own messes and keep their noses out of things that dont concern them.

Aside from hereditary diseases, the only ways I can think of that paternity matters are either emotional (and therefore personal) or cultural (and therefore artificial).

Dont really know where Im going with this so Im gonna shut up now. Thinking about socioeconomics always irritates me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was going to say, yeah, but that doesn't really matter anymore. Then I remembered the last time I had to watch a talk show. "You ARE the father." Yuck.

Maybe there's a use for repressive religion after all.

I still think all the energy that went/goes into this brother (and sister) keeping would be better spent on teaching people to both take responsibility for their own messes and keep their noses out of things that dont concern them.

Aside from hereditary diseases, the only ways I can think of that paternity matters are either emotional (and therefore personal) or cultural (and therefore artificial).

Dont really know where Im going with this so Im gonna shut up now. Thinking about socioeconomics always irritates me.

Is there anything that matters to humans in a way that isn't either personal or cultural?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And just keep in mind, for a woman to have personal matters, she must first be considered a person. The furor over Mad Max is a perfect demonstration of the fact that this is still a difficult concept for a lot of people.

[Dubya]

When I said "personal" I meant "of little concern to society at large."

And, as I pointed out, cultural reasons are artificial. Real, yes, and to be reckoned with, but nothing that can't be surmounted.

That said, everything that matters is either one or the other. But so long as a behavior isn't injurious, its of no concern to anyone not immediately involved. In your example, the only way adultery could be of concern to society is if said society were dumb enough to favor "true" bloodlines in legal matters.

I have to wonder how far Christianity or Islam would have gotten if Jesus or Mohammed had said, "Mind your own damn business and save people by example."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

When I said "personal" I meant "of little concern to society at large."

And, as I pointed out, cultural reasons are artificial. Real, yes, and to be reckoned with, but nothing that can't be surmounted.

That said, everything that matters is either one or the other. But so long as a behavior isn't injurious, its of no concern to anyone not immediately involved. In your example, the only way adultery could be of concern to society is if said society were dumb enough to favor "true" bloodlines in legal matters.

I have to wonder how far Christianity or Islam would have gotten if Jesus or Mohammed had said, "Mind your own damn business and save people by example."

While on some level I am seeing your point and I think that we largely are in agreement, I am sticking a bit on your definitions. I'll come back to this tomorrow though, I need to go to bed.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Aside from hereditary diseases, the only ways I can think of that paternity matters are either emotional (and therefore personal) or cultural (and therefore artificial).

and evolutionary too

[Dubya]

Aside from hereditary diseases, the only ways I can think of that paternity matters are either emotional (and therefore personal) or cultural (and therefore artificial).

and evolutionary too

Yeah, that too. But I was thinking in terms of society. And when society consciously dictates genetics, you get eugenics.

On topic, though, religion has done an awful job of selecting for docility in women.

Sorry, couldn't help it.