I just read this interview (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/mona-eltahawy-interview-religions-obsessed-vagina-headscarves-and-hymens)] 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:
QuoteAre 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?
Yes.
Arguing good, forcing bad.
Religion tells everyone what to do with their bodies. That's why the jews practice circumcision.
You know, at some point you gotta stop practicing and start doing.
/Seinfeld
Quote from: Demolition Squid on May 12, 2015, 08:39:09 AM
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.
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.
Didnt mean to dismiss that at all. Its the most ugly feature of the generalized meddling I just described.
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 01:29:39 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 03:25:43 AM
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?
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.
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."
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 05:43:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 03:25:43 AM
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
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 18, 2015, 06:28:47 AM
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 03:25:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 06:04:25 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 18, 2015, 06:28:47 AM
Quote from: Dubya on May 18, 2015, 03:25:43 AM
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.
I wholeheartedly agree society has no reason to care about paternity, but there are strong evolutionary reasons (not to mention compelling reasons of personal finance) for the individual to not want to get tricked into raising somebody else's kid. Especially in a society that's generally monogamous; in a society of promiscuity you wind up raising someone else's kid and someone else winds up raising your kid and it all approximately balances out in the end, but in a generally monogamous society you just get screwed over.
You're preaching to the choir on the personal finance issue.
But.
Ive known more than one person who by one mechanism or another, wound up raising someone else's kid.
None of them cared any less for these kids than their own.
I put it to you that the monkey urge to favor ones own blood can be overcome, and that the social mechanisms that we built to deal with these matters are just plain retarded. Shall we have adultetesses wearing big red As? Bastards wearing Bs? Cuckolds wearing Cs?
The average project or trailer park would look like alphabet soup.
Whew, got a little carried away. Sorry. [/rant]
Still my opinion that in a proper society, all of this would be MYOB territory.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 18, 2015, 01:02:31 AM
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.
If we were talking about history, that'd be relevant.
But we're not. This article was written about the
modern experience of religion (really, the modern experience of abrahamic religions, although that isn't made explicit in the article).
My point was that by singling out the misogynistic elements
in the modern experience of religion you're actively missing the point - organized religion is about providing moral rules for everyone, man or woman, and
that seems like the problematic element of it in the modern day - particularly around sexual behaviour. That's the challenge which organized religions need to confront if they aren't going to be rejected by an increasingly diverse and tolerant population.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on May 19, 2015, 01:08:13 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 18, 2015, 01:02:31 AM
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.
If we were talking about history, that'd be relevant.
But we're not. This article was written about the modern experience of religion (really, the modern experience of abrahamic religions, although that isn't made explicit in the article).
My point was that by singling out the misogynistic elements in the modern experience of religion you're actively missing the point - organized religion is about providing moral rules for everyone, man or woman, and that seems like the problematic element of it in the modern day - particularly around sexual behaviour. That's the challenge which organized religions need to confront if they aren't going to be rejected by an increasingly diverse and tolerant population.
The present doesn't exist in a vacuum, and people do have every right to focus on parts of their experience that are particularly relevant. But I think I'm out of this thread, it's veering into territory I find distasteful, ie. those wimmins shouldn't complain because mans have problem too.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on May 19, 2015, 01:08:13 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 18, 2015, 01:02:31 AM
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.
If we were talking about history, that'd be relevant.
But we're not. This article was written about the modern experience of religion (really, the modern experience of abrahamic religions, although that isn't made explicit in the article).
My point was that by singling out the misogynistic elements in the modern experience of religion you're actively missing the point - organized religion is about providing moral rules for everyone, man or woman, and that seems like the problematic element of it in the modern day - particularly around sexual behaviour. That's the challenge which organized religions need to confront if they aren't going to be rejected by an increasingly diverse and tolerant population.
This is like complaining that the people at the bottom of the shit heap shouldn't holler, because they're interrupting the people in the middle.
Also, if you want complaints to be addressed, you want as many complaints as you can manage.
I'm not saying they shouldn't complain; I'm saying that it isn't helpful to look at one symptom of the deeper problem and declare that the problem which needs to be addressed. I think that doing so will delay any improvements in the overall system.
It is a red herring. People can - and should - speak up about the issues religion has caused in their lives, but when you're saying that religion has a particular interest over your body because you are a woman and therefore we should work to address that, you're directing your energy at delineating where and how, exactly, it is acceptable for religion to exert control.
That's the fatal mistake. They're looking at the effect of the control, not the fact that the control is being demanded at all - that's the only way you'll begin to reform organized religion in a meaningful sense for all people.
Do I still sound like I'm saying 'Shut up, woman?' Because if I am, I'll stop right here - but I've tried my best to make it clear that is not the problem I see in her argument.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on May 19, 2015, 07:54:54 PM
I'm not saying they shouldn't complain; I'm saying that it isn't helpful to look at one symptom of the deeper problem and declare that the problem which needs to be addressed. I think that doing so will delay any improvements in the overall system.
It is a red herring. People can - and should - speak up about the issues religion has caused in their lives, but when you're saying that religion has a particular interest over your body because you are a woman and therefore we should work to address that, you're directing your energy at delineating where and how, exactly, it is acceptable for religion to exert control.
That's the fatal mistake. They're looking at the effect of the control, not the fact that the control is being demanded at all - that's the only way you'll begin to reform organized religion in a meaningful sense for all people.
Do I still sound like I'm saying 'Shut up, woman?' Because if I am, I'll stop right here - but I've tried my best to make it clear that is not the problem I see in her argument.
When the rock hits you, holler.
It isn't required to analyze the muscles used to throw the rock, or the eye-hand coordination required to hit. Someone fucks with you, you sound off.
And if you can, you fuck 'em right back.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on May 19, 2015, 07:54:54 PM
I'm not saying they shouldn't complain; I'm saying that it isn't helpful to look at one symptom of the deeper problem and declare that the problem which needs to be addressed. I think that doing so will delay any improvements in the overall system.
It is a red herring. People can - and should - speak up about the issues religion has caused in their lives, but when you're saying that religion has a particular interest over your body because you are a woman and therefore we should work to address that, you're directing your energy at delineating where and how, exactly, it is acceptable for religion to exert control.
That's the fatal mistake. They're looking at the effect of the control, not the fact that the control is being demanded at all - that's the only way you'll begin to reform organized religion in a meaningful sense for all people.
Do I still sound like I'm saying 'Shut up, woman?' Because if I am, I'll stop right here - but I've tried my best to make it clear that is not the problem I see in her argument.
Well, it's coming across an awful lot like you're complaining because she isn't complaining about the "right" piece of the problem. Dismissing historical motivations for physical control of women by various religions because that was then and this is now seems... disingenuous.
Compare, if you will, to dismissing historical reasons that black people in America still struggle with systemic racism and poverty because that was then and this is now.
It is, in fact, coming across a bit like "shut up, woman, you aren't even talking about the real problem, which is men's bodies being controlled by the church".
Which seriously as far as I can tell is not even in the same ball park of being as big of a focus by religion.
Alrighty then, I'm done here too.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 20, 2015, 02:53:43 AM
It is, in fact, coming across a bit like "shut up, woman, you aren't even talking about the real problem, which is men's bodies being controlled by the church".
Which seriously as far as I can tell is not even in the same ball park of being as big of a focus by religion.
No. You're still missing the point. The problem isn't
who is being victimized, it's that anyone is being victimized at all
(with the secondary problems that society is being influenced by irrational superstition and by people who are overzealously obsessed by stupid bullshit like ancient traditions [the number of actually worthwhile ideas that anybody came up with prior to the renaissance is so small that they could probably all be listed on one page; anything ancient is suspect at best]).
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on May 20, 2015, 07:17:00 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 20, 2015, 02:53:43 AM
It is, in fact, coming across a bit like "shut up, woman, you aren't even talking about the real problem, which is men's bodies being controlled by the church".
Which seriously as far as I can tell is not even in the same ball park of being as big of a focus by religion.
No. You're still missing the point. The problem isn't who is being victimized, it's that anyone is being victimized at all
(with the secondary problems that society is being influenced by irrational superstition and by people who are overzealously obsessed by stupid bullshit like ancient traditions [the number of actually worthwhile ideas that anybody came up with prior to the renaissance is so small that they could probably all be listed on one page; anything ancient is suspect at best]).
Let me try to translate the situation in a way that does not polarize the discussion:
Team 1: Religion tries to control women's lives, this is bad.
Team 2: Religion tries to control everyone's lives, this is worse.
Team 1: Women have it way worse than men, so talking about women is the main part of the discussion here.
Team 2: Gender is irrelevant to control being bad!
So Team 2 is saying that the suffering of women is irrelevant, and Team 1 is saying that women are not a subset of everyone.
Congratulations, you have both failed to communicate.
... Trying not to polarize didn't work at all!
Remembering the earlier disasters that occurred on these threads, I should leave.
And after the last two posts, I am.
It's like the Seinfeld episode where Jerry buys his parents a digital organizer and they keep referring to it as a "tip calculator"; although it has a tip calculator function it does many other things and referring to it solely as a "tip calculator" seriously misrepresents it.
Well, the entire premise of the OP seems to be "look at this lady; she's doin' it wrong" rather than making its own standalone argument. It's a reaction to someone else's complaint, essentially. And then you get the "well history's in the past" argument. So I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be getting as the takeway.
And then there's the "I haven't actually read the book" aspect.
So... is this discussion about the lack of validity of other people's perspectives? Or..?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 20, 2015, 08:30:28 PM
Well, the entire premise of the OP seems to be "look at this lady; she's doin' it wrong" rather than making its own standalone argument. It's a reaction to someone else's complaint, essentially. And then you get the "well history's in the past" argument. So I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be getting as the takeway.
That women are like Jerry Seinfeld's parents.