From: tangyapple	Date: August 1st, 2007 02:39 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm working really hard to steer clear of saying, "NO KIDDING!"

I'd like to see you write a lot more on this. (And please, correct the few typos. ;))

	From: vexen	Date: August 1st, 2007 05:24 am (UTC)		(Link)

I only found one typo, which was how I originally spelt "patriarchal".

My MS dict file also flagged "centered" and wanted me to change it to "centred", but, I prefer "centered" whether or not it is the correct way to spell it.

I just wanted this page so I could help spread the word!

	From: tangyapple	Date: August 2nd, 2007 06:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

"dependant" on males

"witch-hints"

That's all I see, anyway. :) But I do have a question about early Christianity having treated women equally...? And from the little that I've personally witnessed, not all neoPagan and Earth-centered religious groups are *dominated* by women, but it is usually women who get the groups going and therefore leave it that way. However, with some of subsets, there is an accepted equality of both male and female, but with the more feminist-oriented types, this gets a bit glossed over when some women (and men alike) prefer to "right the imbalance" of religion being so incredibly male-dominated for centuries.

	From: vexen	Date: August 3rd, 2007 11:08 am (UTC)		(Link)

I've fixed "witch-hints", but 'dependant' is fine and is how the author has spelt it.

Thanks, what would I do without you! :-)

... it is Bart Ehrman who says that Christianity was much more women-friendly in its early gnostic days, but that this tolerance was eradicated by Pauline Christianity.

I haven't finished this page yet (it's more of a pagelet), and I will include more complete information on women & paganism once I've got my books back. I knew at the time "dominate" would sound wrongly strong!

	From: vexen	Date: October 7th, 2008 03:15 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I've editted and relaunched this page!

	From: tangyapple	Date: October 7th, 2008 06:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)

:D ::reading::

I think there must be plenty of books that can be added to that list, whether or not they're religiously-oriented. Still, it's a great start.

Which of Lavey's writings in particular make you cringe? And which are worthy of the equality stamp as far as a women are concerned, outside of what you've already stated? I have read some of it and realize he was ahead of his time on a few points, but I haven't read that much of LaVey's stuff.

Meanwhile, I have read other books, etc. in which the claim that early Christianity was very pro-woman. Too bad it didn't last. Maybe the earlier Judeo influence took over after all? And what about Ba'hai? Are they a little more forgiving as regards the female species? ;)

From: (Anonymous)	Date: March 5th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Women = Men

While I would never disagree that women have been mistreated and subjugated for thousands of years because of both religious groups and non-religious groups, I do not agree with your implicit generalizations. Just because people are imperfect—or more to the point: self-serving, egotistical, prideful, etc.—does not render false the teachings of a religious group or non-religious group. If anything, it says the people following the teachings are imperfect. The source of the group’s actions must be understood, whether it is from the teachings of the group, or a perversion of doctrine. This is why I do not believe in “organized religion” as a general principle. I am a Christian, but what you might call a Bible-believing Christian. I read the Bible, examine what it says about certain issues, and follow that. People are errant and religions, which establish rules and traditions, tend toward dry legalism. I try hard not to fall victim to mindless doctrine such as the suppression of women.

As a Christian, I can likely only do justice in the defense of the Christian case. When I look at the Bible, which I believe is the Word of God, I do not see the inequality of men and women. First and foremost, the Bible teaches that God made man, male and female, in His image. This is to say that the imprint of God’s nature is hidden in the combined natures of both men and women. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that marriage is such an important concept in Christianity. Marriage is a picture of God. Man’s nature is rooted in his strength, power, leadership, etc., while woman’s nature is rooted in her compassion, endurance, child-birth, etc. The idea that women are inferior is a blasphemous statement because it says something about God’s very character—that His power is more important than His compassion, that His strength is more important than His endurance, and so on. But you must understand that each gender’s nature gives them strengths and weaknesses in certain tasks, which is why Christianity teaches wives to be submissive to their husbands. This is not to say that women are inferior, but rather that a man’s strength is leadership, and a woman’s strength is supporting and encouraging her husband. The Bible also teaches that women should not instruct men. This is not to say that men are better teachers, but I think that God understands certain things about this interaction that we either do not see or refuse to see. Women distract men. They have for thousands of years. And more often than not, if a woman teaches a man, he will be distracted from the instruction and therefore lack knowledge. There are probably even more reasons which play to the strengths and weaknesses of men and women, but I believe that the Bible teaches men and women as equal, both genders are to be exalted.

You mention that the Greeks, with their paganism, glorified women more often. I would maybe parallel that to the same glorification we give women in today’s commercial industries. Women have to be beautiful—that is to say, grotesquely thin and hidden behind a thick mask of cosmetics. It is grotesque and wholly unflattering to women. As glorified as the women were in the time of the Greeks, they were glorified as objects, not human beings who show the very nature of God in a unique and amazing way.

And non-religiously, the concept of the evolutionary chain can only champion women as tools for the progression of a species. As a gender, women are weaker, just because natural selection made them that way. What a glorious, encouraging thought! “You are weak, just because.”

I assert that Christianity—that is, the teachings of Christ—is perhaps the only set of beliefs, religious or not, that place women in a truly equal status with men. And though you certainly have the right to disagree, I have yet to hear a decent argument against such a claim.

PS: I give you the benefit of the doubt for censoring my previous comment. I did use a term that is very easily flagged as censorable, but I do hope that you are open-minded enough to host a non-biased discussion. [Every other discussion board of yours that I have visited does indicate this fact.] And though you might disagree with my comments, I believe that they are very relevant to the discussion.

	From: tangyapple	Date: October 7th, 2008 06:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Women = Men

I think your comments are very relevant. From what I read here, what is being brought into question are the very beliefs that spring from the Bible, plus their actual validity, thus taken together we end up with a skeptical and thoughtful inquiry as to the roots and reasons of past and ongoing inequality still extant in much of the world.

Naturally, anyone who does not believe the Bible to be the word of any God/god is not obligated to agree with the concepts of women being less effective leaders or only merely distracting instructors. (And does that not say something about a man's weakness? That he would be so easily distracted?) Also, it is quite obviously NOT a given that men are naturally the stronger while women are always the more compassionate, etc. I've seen the reverse more times than I can count. That concept is riddled with an underlying bias toward sociobiological ideals that begin and end in people's minds.

OTOH, I can't disagree that the early teachings of Christianity did in fact support spiritual equality of women and was revolutionary in its time (and still is). However, it hasn't panned out to that effect--perhaps because people are imperfect, etc. That being said, the point that certain religions are indeed superior in supporting the equality of men and women is what vexen is attempting to put forth. I would be inclined to say that there are questions even within that supposition, but that is another discussion entirely.

It is lovely to think that men and women are equal and worthy of exaltation. Were it the practice of most people in the world, articles like this would not be necessary. ;)