Reconsiling women's rights with religious freedom

[kedzieb]

I'm spinning this off from another thread where we were discussing fundamentalist Islamic regimes and the role of women. But honestly, some types of Christianity and Judaism have strict rules guiding the conduct of women just as severe as those in Islam.

Personally, I have a hard time with this as a Catholic. I see no reason why we can't have women priests, married priests, gay priests, access to birth control and equality of spouses. I feel like it's hard for me to go to Mass and support which I see as sexist policies of the Church. But I still think that the message of the church - social justice, anti-poverty, community - goes deeper than the surface rules. But I'll admit that it's a struggle even within my own faith.

Whne it comes to other faiths, sometimes I just don't get it. Why stone a woman for adultery and not the men she was with? Why should only women cover their heads? Why must women be the spouse to submit men?

I think it's easier to see the bad treatment of women in other people's religions than our own. But at the same time, don't we want to let all religions be free to practice here in America? Isn't that what religious tolerance is? When can a line be drawn between religious expression and abuse of women?

[kedzieb]

Oops - misspelled reconciling. Can a mod fix it please?

[LyLMyssChaos]

Why must women be the spouse to submit men?



For me, the reason women must submit to their husbands is because of this scripture:

Ephesians 5:22-29
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the assembly, being himself the savior of the body.

24 But as the assembly is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their own husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it;
26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

27 that he might present the assembly to himself gloriously, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 Even so husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.

29 For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;

People often remember the first part of this scripture (about the wife) but those that want to distort the teaching and use it to control women leave out the reset of it (the husband loving the wife as he loves himself, etc.) I think that is when it goes wrong. If more people followed the ENTIRE scripture, women wouldn't be abused or mistreated.

[kedzieb]

People often remember the first part of this scripture (about the wife) but those that want to distort the teaching and use it to control women leave out the reset of it (the husband loving the wife as he loves himself, etc.) I think that is when it goes wrong. If more people followed the ENTIRE scripture, women wouldn't be abused or mistreated.

Of course I know the scripture! That's not the point to me. There's scripture backing up everything from incest to rape, but we as a society (and as Christians) don't use it to form our laws thank goodness.

My point was - where does religious freedom end and human rights start? In that case, to me, legislating that women should submit to their husbands would be wrong. Allowing husbands to distort the scripture to get away with spousal abuse, rape and cheating on their wives would be wrong. Individual couples agreeing before marriage to structure their marriage that way, I'd be fine with.

Where would you draw the line? And where as a society should we draw the line?

[Sarah]

Of course I know the scripture! That's not the point to me. There's scripture backing up everything from incest to rape, but we as a society (and as ChristiansNo there's not. Those things happen in the bible, but they are not supported by scripture.

ITA with LMC on her perspective, but I know what you mean- where do we draw the line between expression of religion (even if we find that religion oppressive or unfair) and cruelty to women? I don't know the answer. I do know that I find FGM to be horrific, and I would stop it, but I am okay (though uncomfortable) with most of the middle eastern society's laws against women having what we would see as "civil rights" (voting, etc). Although I disagree with those laws, I don't see them as crossing that line.

[LyLMyssChaos]

My point was - where does religious freedom end and human rights start? In that case, to me, legislating that women should submit to their husbands would be wrong. Allowing husbands to distort the scripture to get away with spousal abuse, rape and cheating on their wives would be wrong. Individual couples agreeing before marriage to structure their marriage that way, I'd be fine with.

Where would you draw the line? And where as a society should we draw the line?

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood the question originally. I would think that many Americans would be of the opinion that religion should not play a part in any legislation. It is a fine line when it comes to creating laws. You want to establish laws that protect our people, but at the same time you want to protect the religious freedom that is so important to our citizens. I would venture to say that it makes more sense to create laws based on safety, implementality and the general effect that those laws would have on society than on religious beliefs. It would be very difficult to make laws based on religion that would agree with all religious belief systems (or lack thereof.)

[kedzieb]

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood the question originally. I would think that many Americans would be of the opinion that religion should not play a part in any legislation. It is a fine line when it comes to creating laws. You want to establish laws that protect our people, but at the same time you want to protect the religious freedom that is so important to our citizens. I would venture to say that it makes more sense to create laws based on safety, implementality and the general effect that those laws would have on society than on religious beliefs. It would be very difficult to make laws based on religion that would agree with all religious belief systems (or lack thereof.)


I realized I might have been confusing.

ITA that in America, we should keep the separation of church and state. I think it's worked pretty well for the past 200 years. You're right - which religion would we even use to make the laws? We're lucky we have such a variety of religious groups in the US so that it would be hard to have one religious group demand that their beliefs/rules be used to legislate.

In other countries though - some of whom we have strong relationships with - they do have one dominant religion that has taken over the government and
legislated their religious rules as laws for everyone. Also in the US, there are a lot of religious groups that self-segregate and how should we feel about their treatment of women? You here stories of child-marriage, spousal abuse and isolation. Of course if it comes to light, people are proscecuted according to US laws. But I wonder about other practices - maybe ones that aren't exactly illegal - that keep women down. Like not allowing the women to work or leave the house alone, drive, vote, dress as they choose, handle money.

[thelittlebabu]

I'm sure this is going to be clumsily written...

The United States considers certain rights as inalienable...things like the right to life, liberty, the persuit of happiness and the like. The constitution was written not to grant these rights, but to protect them (e.g. the Bill of Rights); If they are inalienable rights, then no government can either grant them or take them away...they are yours. These rights supercede all other rules, including those found in all religions. For example, if those that practice radical Islam in the USA believe their religion justifies the killing of any muslim who tries to convert to another religion, this conflicts directly with that muslim's inalienable right to life and is not allowed.

It is this concept of inalienable rights that does not exist in many countries around the world, especially in the middle east. In such countries, rights are granted by the government as they see fit. Because religions in general and especially Islam in particular give women the short end of the stick, women are granted awful (if any) rights in many places around the world.

[pocket]

I would really love it if women had equal rights all over the world. But equal rights were hard-won in this country and they will be hard-won everywhere. I don’t see an inherent conflict between respecting other cultures and religions and saying that it is simply a better world when an individual person has the same rights and access as any other individual person. It is unbelievably hard to be a woman in the developing world. Women bear the worst of poverty and inequality and violence. But it is important not to confuse real inequality with religious modesty, which I think it not uncommon. Just because a woman wears a particular kind of hat on her head, or sits on the other side of the room from the men, doesn’t mean that she doesn’t wield power. If a woman can get an education, own property and vote. If she has control over her own fertility and is equally protected by the law and has the right to move around the country. If she is legally protected from violence. If she has the right to marry and end her marriage at her will. If she has the right to enter into legal contracts and have a voice in a court. If she has the right to custody of her children, the right to work for money, and the right to speak her mind. I think all of those things are compatible with traditional religions. Equality might wear a headscarf in some places. Or a Sheitel (wig).

I have conflicting feelings about feminist philosophies that incorporate traditional religious beliefs. Sometimes it seems to me a bit of a stretch to say that women are set aside because they are so special and that there’s a feminist aspect to that separation. Or the argument that women control the home and wield their power that way. But again, it makes more sense to me to advocate the concrete changes and leave the religious philosophy by the wayside.

[kedzieb]

I would really love it if women had equal rights all over the world. But equal rights were hard-won in this country and they will be hard-won everywhere. I don’t see an inherent conflict between respecting other cultures and religions and saying that it is simply a better world when an individual person has the same rights and access as any other individual person. It is unbelievably hard to be a woman in the developing world. Women bear the worst of poverty and inequality and violence. But it is important not to confuse real inequality with religious modesty, which I think it not uncommon. Just because a woman wears a particular kind of hat on her head, or sits on the other side of the room from the men, doesn’t mean that she doesn’t wield power. If a woman can get an education, own property and vote. If she has control over her own fertility and is equally protected by the law and has the right to move around the country. If she is legally protected from violence. If she has the right to marry and end her marriage at her will. If she has the right to enter into legal contracts and have a voice in a court. If she has the right to custody of her children, the right to work for money, and the right to speak her mind. I think all of those things are compatible with traditional religions. Equality might wear a headscarf in some places. Or a Sheitel (wig).

I have conflicting feelings about feminist philosophies that incorporate traditional religious beliefs. Sometimes it seems to me a bit of a stretch to say that women are set aside because they are so special and that there’s a feminist aspect to that separation. Or the argument that women control the home and wield their power that way. But again, it makes more sense to me to advocate the concrete changes and leave the religious philosophy by the wayside.

I agree on some levels with what you're saying. I think sometimes people focus on the more visible examples of how women have to act differently than men due to religious reasons and assume that is where their oppression stems from. I think there is a head scarf. And sometimes a women who enjoys human rights (votes, owns property, chooses spouse, able to work) chooses to wear it due to her religious beliefs. But I also think that usually when women have to behave differently than men, it is normally the women who have to give something up.

thelittlebabu - That's how I tend to reconcile (which is still misspelled in the title - I swear I can spell!) it in the US. Bill of rights & laws come first and as long as religious expression doesn't violate the laws it's really none of my business. But since I'm a feminist and want to see equal treatment of men & women, it's hard when you see oppression of women justified by religion.

[kris97]

Fascinating issue, and one I'd love to comment more thoroughly on once I have a little more time. I was actually just thinking about it this morning when I read an article in the NYT about Pakistan proposing laws to somewhat equalize the gender disparity re: rape and adultery and the obstacles those laws are facing: I can't remember the exact details, but one aspect that really struck me was a bill proposed (or enacted? I can't remember) by one party that punishes women for being raped. Not: makes it difficult to prosecute rape, but punishes women for being raped. It's situations like this --so obviously destructive and unfair to women -- which make it hard to wholeheartedly support religious/cultural autonomy on this issue.

[sue-bert]

I have conflicting feelings about feminist philosophies that incorporate traditional religious beliefs. Sometimes it seems to me a bit of a stretch to say that women are set aside because they are so special and that there’s a feminist aspect to that separation. Or the argument that women control the home and wield their power that way. But again, it makes more sense to me to advocate the concrete changes and leave the religious philosophy by the wayside.
pocket,

A lot of what you wrote really resonated with me.

sue-bert

[jnettie]

And sometimes a women who enjoys human rights (votes, owns property, chooses spouse, able to work) chooses to wear it due to her religious beliefs. But I also think that usually when women have to behave differently than men, it is normally the women who have to give something up.
This is why my first instinct is that the "special" tactic is a load of crap, from my POV. Either way it's spun, it's still the woman that has to cover up or give something up. I can't comprehend the idea that men can more easily relate to a woman who covers herself up - it still says there is something wrong with being attractive, that men just can't control themselves and that's ok, so it's up to women to cover themselves up, otherwise they're just asking for it.

My point was - where does religious freedom end and human rights start? In that case, to me, legislating that women should submit to their husbands would be wrong. Allowing husbands to distort the scripture to get away with spousal abuse, rape and cheating on their wives would be wrong. Individual couples agreeing before marriage to structure their marriage that way, I'd be fine with.

Where would you draw the line? And where as a society should we draw the line?
Right. This is a tough question. I think you can certainly draw the line within your own country - those inalienable rights thelittlebabu was talking about. It is most certainly illegal to murder your daughter for "dishonoring" the family (though, sadly, not unusual for those daughters to be beaten in this country for simply having a boyfriend...), but at what point is it ok for us to step in on another country's laws and religion? Furthermore, will it even work? And, as anothr pointed out, it's not just Muslims, but Christians and Jews as well. DH's aunt and uncle, who are fundimentalists, don't believe a woman should work, and therefor, his aunt is a SAHM. It's not a choice she's made, it's her only option, and one I certainly don't agree with. But, I'm certain that his aunt wouldn't say she's being oppressed - quite the opposite, she's rather appaled at OUR behavior! So, it's not always the men, but the women who actively participate in their own oppression (IMO).

It is this concept of inalienable rights that does not exist in many countries around the world, especially in the middle east. In such countries, rights are granted by the government as they see fit. Because religions in general and especially Islam in particular give women the short end of the stick, women are granted awful (if any) rights in many places around the world.
Right. Our concept of Freedom and rights is not the same world wide. Heck, it's not the same in most of Europe!


Let's not forget that women's rights are a new concept (well, since the fall of the Goddess religions!) even in this country. It's only been, what, less than a hundred years since we had the vote, less than 30 since husbands could be arrested for raping their wives. And America never was an extreme! Now, try expecting another culture to strip away all their oppresive ideas instantly! What's more, not all the women are on that bandwagon.

[kedzieb]

Let's not forget that women's rights are a new concept (well, since the fall of the Goddess religions!) even in this country. It's only been, what, less than a hundred years since we had the vote, less than 30 since husbands could be arrested for raping their wives. And America never was an extreme! Now, try expecting another culture to strip away all their oppresive ideas instantly! What's more, not all the women are on that bandwagon.

I remember reading aout FGM and people in Africa trying to stop the practice. They said that the strongest resistance they faced was from the grandmothers of the girls being mutilated. So I can totally understand that a lot of the oppression of women is being perpetuated by the other women in a culture.

That being said, it's not really fair blaming women who they themselves have been persecuted over time by the laws & customs of their land. They may also fear for their safety if the challenge the status quo. Even in America, women who fight for equal rights can be vilified as Nazis, man-haters and bitches if they stand up for equal rights. So I'd bet that in a country where religious or legal practices oppress women, the response to even questioning it would be more severe. That's why I think it's good for us here - where we have the freedom to discuss sexist treatment - to ask these tough questions.

But I worry about the line between trying to help women gain equality (whether within their homes/work/countries/religions) and telling them what to do.

[jnettie]

Oh, I think you misunderstood...I agree with you, I'm not blaming at all. I understand that the impetus is generally fear of being ostricised, abused, or killed even in some cases. I was just pointing out that even women protect traditions that appear to be oppressive from our perspective. Like DH's aunt, who's only choice in life is to be a SAHM (on a smaller scale, true), she defends this as a woman's "place", while I see it as oppression. Am I making sense?

[kedzieb]

Oh, I think you misunderstood...I agree with you, I'm not blaming at all. I understand that the impetus is generally fear of being ostricised, abused, or killed even in some cases. I was just pointing out that even women protect traditions that appear to be oppressive from our perspective. Like DH's aunt, who's only choice in life is to be a SAHM (on a smaller scale, true), she defends this as a woman's "place", while I see it as oppression. Am I making sense?

Absolutely. I'm not really about blaming the oppressed, but it is slightly more infuriating to hear sexist language/beliefs coming from a woman's mouth. It breaks my heart when women internalize sexism and then demand other women toe the line too.

I do think it's even harder when you bring religion into it too. Mothers in most cases are the ones in the family to teach their children their religion at home. And when your mom is teaching you that God says you have to whatever-sexist-interpretation-of-holy-text, it's hard not to do it.

[jnettie]

kedzieb, I do believe you and I are on the exact same page. :)

[ysolde]

Ya know, the place where I worship, men and women are seated separately in the sanctuary. All men have to cover their hair (they also wear prayer shawls). Married women have to cover our hair (I love hats, so, not a problem). While not required, women are encouraged to wear skirts rather than pants.

I don't know why, but none of this has ever bothered me. Women there have really high-powered jobs, and always have had, so it's not like the religious requirements translate into other things. Moreover, no one has ever asked the US government to turn the rather ancient laws governing faith into the laws of hte US government. The more the US government stays out of our business, the better, IMHO, so the converse is also true.

[jnettie]

I guess it really depends on what an individual wants and, to me, whether both genders are getting the same spiritual access.

Quakers used to (don't know if this is still true) have men and women not only sit in seperate sections but enter seperate doors. However, they had access to the same sermons (or lack thereof, since there are no clergy in this case), and women were allowed to speak in church as much as men.

Now, often in Islam, not only are women seperate, but they are not granted the same spiritual access men have. They may not speak with the Imam or hear these private teachings the men get. FWIW, I've only visited one Mosque, but it is my understanding that this is the norm. I guess this is the biggest problem I have when it comes to spirituality and gender. I don't like the idea that your gender limits what you are allowed to attain.

That said, I don't think I can tell someone that what they believe is wrong. I'd never tell a Muslim woman that she should change her religion or that she shouldn't put up with what I wouldn't put up with. That would be unforgivable on my part. Like I said before, it's up to the individual to decide what is best for himself or herself. It is quiet possible that my own prejudices are not allowing me to see something else that the women hold sacred.

[Asha]

jnettie - i went to a quaker college, and have been to several different types of quaker meetings, and i have never seen men and women separated. there may be a few quaker meetings who still do this, but i would be surprised if many still did bc it really goes against many of their basic principles.

[jnettie]

Thanks, Asha. I didn't think they would still do so. I did some research a while back on Quakers, so that's where my knowledge came from. I think the seperation was just out of something that was rather common in the preceeding centuries. I recently learned that at the old Dodgers' Sadium here in Brooklyn, there was a seperate section for women during the 19th century!

[kedzieb]

European Muslim Intellectuals Chart New Course (http://news.wnpr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135353)

An interesting viewpoint from people who are trying to help bridge the huge ideological chasm between Western liberalism (equality of women, tolerance of religion, secular statehood) and Islamic fundamentalism in Europe.

I heard it on NPR the other day driving out to see my in-laws.