Do (many) religions tend to demean women?

[Zzyzx]

.
Do (many) religions tend to demean women?
If so, why?

Examples?

Justification?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 95 by bluethread]

You'd like a reset to the conversation. That is fine with me.

Here is my position: I agree with the OP that religion is demeaning to women. As an example, here are three passages from the bible that support my assertion.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

1 Peter 3:1-7
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV / 26 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the nature of “demeaning�, I still use the definition found in the dictionary. If you choose not to, that is rather unfortunate and counter-productive.

Here are the wiktionary definitions:

"To debase; to lower; to degrade.  
To humble, humble oneself; to humiliate.
To mortify."

Each implies a lowering from a previous state. In order for something to be demeaned a previous state must be presumed. Now, I do not care to proceed with applications of this definition until we have cleared the table and started a proper discussion. There have been way too many layer of presumption that have been added to the discussion I was having with Daniel for any clear line of reasoning to emerge at this point, in my opinion.

Sure. But, in order to discuss this, we will need specific examples of a religion and a demeaning behavior. Would you agree?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 83 by KenRU]

I’m hoping here that you’re not going for the evolution = religion route. But I’ll risk it anyway. What god do I believe in?

I do argue that in general but here I am saying that the imaginary gods you want to keep are: love, justice, morality, etc

In what believable, accurate, relevant reality can you equate those words to gods?

What is a social construct but an imaginary concept?

Agreed, except to add that it also acts as a method of controlling anti-social behavior.

So what are you disagreeing with?

Your analogy in Post 81: “Saying a biological creature has dignity is as bizarre as saying a rock has dignity.�

What is anti-social behaviour?

Behavior that is anti-social.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that they have identified many regions of the brain that process emotional responses (which proves they exists – subjective though they are), I fail to see your point. Are you arguing that emotional states don’t exist?

Evolution happening has no bearing on this truth or not. Please explain why you think evolution would preclude a social creature from creating definitions for emotional responses. This really makes no sense to me.

A specific region of the brain might be the spot that generates a specific emotion but clearly we can display the same emotion in a wide variety of circumstances. It is not true that ice cream always makes people happy.

It would seem to me that you are misapplying your analogy. Ice cream is the cause (of happy or unhappy). But we all agree that happy and unhappy exist and is subjective for each individual. Why should multiple causes for happiness be relevant?

I am not arguing that scientific phenomena don't exist for atheists. Whilst you have no metaphysical basis for your belief in science you can still do it, whilst you have no metaphysical basis for morality you can still be moral.

You pretend they exist in exactly the same way you think I pretend God exists. Only believing in God gives me an objective basis for believing in metaphysical concepts. You have no basis other than a self declaration that they exist which is to my mind the classic 'man wanting to be God' syndrome. Of which I said that Christianity specifically does intend to demean humanity of the notion.

None of this seems relevant to the OP. Whether atheism is demeaning or not (it's not, imo) does not change the fact that religion either is or is not demeaning towards women.

Do you have an opinion on this subject?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 95 by bluethread]

You'd like a reset to the conversation. That is fine with me.

Here is my position: I agree with the OP that religion is demeaning to women. As an example, here are three passages from the bible that support my assertion.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

1 Peter 3:1-7
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV / 26 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the nature of “demeaning�, I still use the definition found in the dictionary. If you choose not to, that is rather unfortunate and counter-productive.

Here are the wiktionary definitions:

"To debase; to lower; to degrade.  
To humble, humble oneself; to humiliate.
To mortify."

Each implies a lowering from a previous state. In order for something to be demeaned a previous state must be presumed. Now, I do not care to proceed with applications of this definition until we have cleared the table and started a proper discussion. There have been way too many layer of presumption that have been added to the discussion I was having with Daniel for any clear line of reasoning to emerge at this point, in my opinion.

Sure. But, in order to discuss this, we will need specific examples of a religion and a demeaning behavior. Would you agree?

I promise that we will get to the details of those passages, but first, so we can stay focused, the OP is primarily about whether the term "demean" applies. If there is something else you wish to discuss, we will have to realign our discussion, or deal with those issues after resolving this one. Now, those passages do show men in the dominate role and women in the submissive role for various reasons. Since the term demean refers to a lowering from a previous state, where do we find women in the dominate role or not in the submissive role to begin with?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 95 by bluethread]

As for the nature of “demeaning�, I still use the definition found in the dictionary. If you choose not to, that is rather unfortunate and counter-productive.

Here are the wiktionary definitions:

"To debase; to lower; to degrade.  
To humble, humble oneself; to humiliate.
To mortify."

Each implies a lowering from a previous state. In order for something to be demeaned a previous state must be presumed. Now, I do not care to proceed with applications of this definition until we have cleared the table and started a proper discussion. There have been way too many layer of presumption that have been added to the discussion I was having with Daniel for any clear line of reasoning to emerge at this point, in my opinion.

Sure. But, in order to discuss this, we will need specific examples of a religion and a demeaning behavior. Would you agree?

I promise that we will get to the details of those passages, but first, so we can stay focused, the OP is primarily about whether the term "demean" applies. If there is something else you wish to discuss, we will have to realign our discussion, or deal with those issues after resolving this one.

No, this is fine. But, keep in mind the OP also asks for examples and justifications. So, my examples are not only relevant, but the OP asks for them.

Now, those passages do show men in the dominate role and women in the submissive role for various reasons.

The question then becomes, are those reasons demeaning? Are they justifiable? Not to mention, why are the women already assigned submissive roles? Would you agree that being unilaterally forced to be submissive, based solely upon gender, is demeaning?

In point of fact, multiple examples in the definition you provided, are already accounted for: "To debase; to lower; to degrade. To humble, humble oneself; to humiliate. To mortify."

I'll argue that even the non-boldfaced definitions above also apply, but, according to the definition that you supplied, it would seem that the use of the word demean would be called for.

Since the term demean refers to a lowering from a previous state, where do we find women in the dominate role or not in the submissive role to begin with?

Not quite. As we can see above, to demean also means to humble oneself. And the first example given is: to debase which means (according to dictionary.com):

1. to reduce in quality or value; adulterate: "They debased the value of the dollar." 2. to lower in rank, dignity, or significance

So, this lowering you speak of isn't the most accurate definition of the word. That is unless you want to argue off the bat that women are of lower value then men?

But even to your point, are you saying that because women have throughout history have been subjugated by men, they then have no justification for feeling demeaned? How is this relevant to the conversation? Unless you plan on arguing that: they have always been subjugated by men, therefore there is no lowering of their state - they are already lowered because they are women.

Just so my position is clear, when one discriminates against a gender for no reason, I will equate that with a demeaning behavior.

IE: example of a non-demeaning behavior: genders requiring different bathrooms for privacy.
Neither gender has lost or gained any status, rights etc in society.

IE: example of a demeaning behavior: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.� Clearly, one gender gains a higher status, while the other has little to no say. There is no reason why one gender deserves a higher status and the other a lower. This is discriminatory in nature, and therefore demeaning.

-all the best,

[bluethread]

Now, those passages do show men in the dominate role and women in the submissive role for various reasons.

The question then becomes, are those reasons demeaning? Are they justifiable? Not to mention, why are the women already assigned submissive roles? Would you agree that being unilaterally forced to be submissive, based solely upon gender, is demeaning?

In point of fact, multiple examples in the definition you provided, are already accounted for: "To debase; to lower; to degrade. To humble, humble oneself; to humiliate. To mortify."

I'll argue that even the non-boldfaced definitions above also apply, but, according to the definition that you supplied, it would seem that the use of the word demean would be called for.

Not necessarily, one would have to identify what it is that composes "gender". I will use that term advisedly, but I am not accepting the progressive sociological application of the term "gender" to the differences in the sexes. I believe it not only biases the discussion by separating male and female tendencies from ones sex, it confuses the argument by allowing that a particular man and a particular woman can be said to be the same "gender".

Since the term demean refers to a lowering from a previous state, where do we find women in the dominate role or not in the submissive role to begin with?

Not quite. As we can see above, to demean also means to humble oneself. And the first example given is: to debase which means (according to dictionary.com):

1. to reduce in quality or value; adulterate: "They debased the value of the dollar." 2. to lower in rank, dignity, or significance

So, this lowering you speak of isn't the most accurate definition of the word. That is unless you want to argue off the bat that women are of lower value then men?

For certain things they are and for certain things men are of lesser value than women. I do not believe in the concept of inherent value. Value is determined by the end user. Also, those two definitions of debase are to reduce and to lower. As I stated in regard to the term demean, those two concept imply a previous status which is then reduced or lowered. The question then is what is the appropriate status to begin with that is then being reduced or lowered.

But even to your point, are you saying that because women have throughout history have been subjugated by men, they then have no justification for feeling demeaned? How is this relevant to the conversation? Unless you plan on arguing that: they have always been subjugated by men, therefore there is no lowering of their state - they are already lowered because they are women.

No, I am asking to see if you know a significant number of cases in which women in a societies have held the dominant role, because, if that is not the case, it would be relevant to establish why that is.

Just so my position is clear, when one discriminates against a gender for no reason, I will equate that with a demeaning behavior.

That would be arbitrary and I have no intention of justifying discrimination for no reason. So let's look at your examples in that regard.

IE: example of a non-demeaning behavior: genders requiring different bathrooms for privacy.
Neither gender has lost or gained any status, rights etc in society.

You present a reason, privacy and that is sufficient to meet your criteria. However, you then go on to say that no status or rights are lost or gained. That is being contested as we speak with regard to those who consider themselves to be "trangender". This is what I was talking about when I stated my reservations with us using the term "gender" when referring to the different sexes. A man whose self image is as a woman may find it to be a violation of rights to be precluded from using the women's restroom. Sorry for the tortured wording, but this "transgender" stuff also leads to pronoun difficulties. However, this shows that status and rights are peculiar to a given society.

In most of these United States the "transgender" are not demeaned by having to use a restroom that matches that one's sex, because there is no right to use a restroom based one's self image. However, as you have noted, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy based on one's sex. Therefore, it is demeaning for a woman to encounter a "transgender" who is physically male in the women's restroom. In France, there is no such expectation, so the women is not demeaned in that society.

IE: example of a demeaning behavior: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.� Clearly, one gender gains a higher status, while the other has little to no say. There is no reason why one gender deserves a higher status and the other a lower. This is discriminatory in nature, and therefore demeaning.

Though you did not include it, this is not for no reason. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." There you have two reasons. You may not like those two reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. They serve to establish the baseline, as does the right to privacy does in these United States. There is no inherent right to privacy, but that right just happens to be recognized in these United States.

So, the bottom line is that in order to determine if something is demeaning or degrading, one must establish a social baseline. If the baseline is that one can not discriminate for no reason, the situation in 1 Timothy is not demeaning or degrading, because there is a traditional reason.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, the bottom line is that in order to determine if something is demeaning or degrading, one must establish a social baseline. If the baseline is that one can not discriminate for no reason, the situation in 1 Timothy is not demeaning or degrading, because there is a traditional reason.

Thus, if women have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens (and below / subservient to men) in someone's favorite religion that is perfectly acceptable. Right?

If certain people have traditionally been treated as slaves in a religion, that is okay too. Right?

[bluethread]

.

So, the bottom line is that in order to determine if something is demeaning or degrading, one must establish a social baseline. If the baseline is that one can not discriminate for no reason, the situation in 1 Timothy is not demeaning or degrading, because there is a traditional reason.

Thus, if women have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens (and below / subservient to men) in someone's favorite religion that is perfectly acceptable. Right?

If certain people have traditionally been treated as slaves in a religion, that is okay too. Right?

That depends on the society. The introduction of the phrase "second-class citizens" implies a society where classes are defined and gradations applied. What scale is one to use in defining a class and what justifies that scale? HaTorah does not recognize "class" as that term is used today. People are classified based on their role, but there is no upper or lower class. What is it that establishes something as ok? Is it not the standard set by a given society?

Your introduction of slavery into the discussion appears to a red herring Ad Nazium argument, either equating this topic to antibellum slavery, or treating arguments of tradition as always having no value at all, because some may use tradition as a justification for slavery. However, that is not the case with slavery as it is presented in Ha Torah. That said, let's try to keep this on topic and not discuss slavery here.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, the bottom line is that in order to determine if something is demeaning or degrading, one must establish a social baseline. If the baseline is that one can not discriminate for no reason, the situation in 1 Timothy is not demeaning or degrading, because there is a traditional reason.

Thus, if women have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens (and below / subservient to men) in someone's favorite religion that is perfectly acceptable. Right?

If certain people have traditionally been treated as slaves in a religion, that is okay too. Right?

That depends on the society. The introduction of the phrase "second-class citizens" implies a society where classes are defined and gradations applied.

Can you cite an example of a class-free society?

What scale is one to use in defining a class and what justifies that scale? HaTorah does not recognize "class" as that term is used today. People are classified based on their role, but there is no upper or lower class.

We are not confining discussion to HaTorah -- but discussing religions in general.

What is it that establishes something as ok? Is it not the standard set by a given society?

I was actually asking if such discrimination was okay with you -- as a reflection of your society and your religion. It appears from your discussion as though you wish to defend male dominance / chauvinism. Is that correct?

[KenRU]

Now, those passages do show men in the dominate role and women in the submissive role for various reasons.

The question then becomes, are those reasons demeaning? Are they justifiable? Not to mention, why are the women already assigned submissive roles? Would you agree that being unilaterally forced to be submissive, based solely upon gender, is demeaning?

In point of fact, multiple examples in the definition you provided, are already accounted for: "To debase; to lower; to degrade. To humble, humble oneself; to humiliate. To mortify."

I'll argue that even the non-boldfaced definitions above also apply, but, according to the definition that you supplied, it would seem that the use of the word demean would be called for.

Not necessarily, one would have to identify what it is that composes "gender". I will use that term advisedly, but I am not accepting the progressive sociological application of the term "gender" to the differences in the sexes. I believe it not only biases the discussion by separating male and female tendencies from ones sex, it confuses the argument by allowing that a particular man and a particular woman can be said to be the same "gender".

What composes gender? You’re not “accepting the progressive sociological application of the term "gender" to the differences in the sexes�? This seems like you are pointlessly confusing the issue. And you completely avoid the point.

I think it is critical to our conversation, so I would appreciate an honest answer. Would this sentence be more to your liking? – “Would you agree that being unilaterally forced to be submissive, based solely upon whether one is female, is demeaning?�

Since the term demean refers to a lowering from a previous state, where do we find women in the dominate role or not in the submissive role to begin with?

Not quite. As we can see above, to demean also means to humble oneself. And the first example given is: to debase which means (according to dictionary.com):

1. to reduce in quality or value; adulterate: "They debased the value of the dollar." 2. to lower in rank, dignity, or significance

So, this lowering you speak of isn't the most accurate definition of the word. That is unless you want to argue off the bat that women are of lower value then men?

For certain things they are and for certain things men are of lesser value than women.

Please cite a relevant example where for these “certain things� all men are of one value and all women are of a different value. After all, if it is not 100% true for each sex, then it is just arbitrarily discriminatory, and inherently demeaning.

Also, please cite an example where the bible considers men of lesser value then women.

I do not believe in the concept of inherent value. Value is determined by the end user. Also, those two definitions of debase are to reduce and to lower.

Please don’t change the definition to suit your point. The full definition of debase is to lower in quality or value. Chopping of the end descriptive terms is wholly deceptive and misleading.

My point stands: Demean means to Debase, which means “to lower in value or quality� (all versions I use are the PRIMARY definitions of the word in question). So, once the bible makes the edict that women are submissive to men, how can you argue that this is not demeaning? As soon as that sentence is uttered or written, women become lesser – by ANY honest and reasonable description.

As I stated in regard to the term demean, those two concept imply a previous status which is then reduced or lowered. The question then is what is the appropriate status to begin with that is then being reduced or lowered.

Just out of curiosity, why can’t the playing field be started even? Why shouldn’t we start with men and women being of equal value? Unless you DO believe in an inherent value???

But even to your point, are you saying that because women have throughout history have been subjugated by men, they then have no justification for feeling demeaned? How is this relevant to the conversation? Unless you plan on arguing that: they have always been subjugated by men, therefore there is no lowering of their state - they are already lowered because they are women.

No, I am asking to see if you know a significant number of cases in which women in a societies have held the dominant role, because, if that is not the case, it would be relevant to establish why that is.

Why is that relevant? That only becomes relevant to the OP if you believe that men and women do not have equal value as human beings. Is that your argument? It seems so when you say this: “For certain things they are and for certain things men are of lesser value than women.�

Are you arguing that because most (but not all) men are stronger than women, that no women should ever have a leadership (dominant) role in society?

Just so my position is clear, when one discriminates against a gender for no reason, I will equate that with a demeaning behavior.

That would be arbitrary and I have no intention of justifying discrimination for no reason. So let's look at your examples in that regard.

I disagree. So far, your only justifications for arguing that religion doesn’t demean women have been making sweeping generalizations regarding gender. So, by definition the argument you seem to be making is arbitrary – hence my statement.

IE: example of a non-demeaning behavior: genders requiring different bathrooms for privacy.
Neither gender has lost or gained any status, rights etc in society.

You present a reason, privacy and that is sufficient to meet your criteria. However, you then go on to say that no status or rights are lost or gained. That is being contested as we speak with regard to those who consider themselves to be "trangender". This is what I was talking about when I stated my reservations with us using the term "gender" when referring to the different sexes. A man whose self image is as a woman may find it to be a violation of rights to be precluded from using the women's restroom. Sorry for the tortured wording, but this "transgender" stuff also leads to pronoun difficulties. However, this shows that status and rights are peculiar to a given society.

Nice try, but no. Whether a particular individual considers himself male or female is irrelevant to the conversation. And, as I stated, many places have unisex bathrooms, so this is (as I stated) an non-issue and no one’s status is demeaned.

In most of these United States the "transgender" are not demeaned by having to use a restroom that matches that one's sex, because there is no right to use a restroom based one's self image. However, as you have noted, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy based on one's sex. Therefore, it is demeaning for a woman to encounter a "transgender" who is physically male in the women's restroom. In France, there is no such expectation, so the women is not demeaned in that society.

I disagree. Individuals may feel their privacy has been violated, but no demeaning behavior occurred. No one’s status has been lowered, degraded or de-valued. It is not demeaning just to encounter the opposite sex in a restroom. After all, in your example, the women have stalls for additional privacy. Privacy still exists.

IE: example of a demeaning behavior: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.� Clearly, one gender gains a higher status, while the other has little to no say. There is no reason why one gender deserves a higher status and the other a lower. This is discriminatory in nature, and therefore demeaning.

Though you did not include it, this is not for no reason. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." There you have two reasons. You may not like those two reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless.

No, it establishes a discriminatory reason. It is a sweeping assertion against all women based upon nothing. The reason given is the WHOLE point of the discussion. All women are demeaned by this statement (Whether Eve exists or not. Whether Eve was deceived or not. Neither is relevant. All women are unfairly subjected to this based upon your logic).

If my wife cheated on me, should I label all women cheaters? Would that be fair? After all, I have a reason. I say the reason matters. Do you disagree?

Or is it ok, in your eyes, only to establish an unfair baseline when god says so?

They serve to establish the baseline, as does the right to privacy does in these United States. There is no inherent right to privacy, but that right just happens to be recognized in these United States.

So, the bottom line is that in order to determine if something is demeaning or degrading, one must establish a social baseline. If the baseline is that one can not discriminate for no reason, the situation in 1 Timothy is not demeaning or degrading, because there is a traditional reason.

Traditional reason? Try discriminatory. After all, we’re labeling all women because of the actions of one, correct?

This is just a word game now. I don’t agree with your assertion, as I have repeatedly said (the reason given must matter).

It sounds very much like you are saying that since Eve sinned, all women should be submissive to men. Am I wrong?

[bluethread]

That depends on the society. The introduction of the phrase "second-class citizens" implies a society where classes are defined and gradations applied.

Can you cite an example of a class-free society?

Those who evaluate societies by class are able to define any society that way. The question that lead us here is, have there been any societies where men have not had the dominant role and why is it that most if not all societies are this way?

What scale is one to use in defining a class and what justifies that scale? HaTorah does not recognize "class" as that term is used today. People are classified based on their role, but there is no upper or lower class.

We are not confining discussion to HaTorah -- but discussing religions in general.

Sorry, I am involved in two discussions, I was using the narrowed scope that RU wishes to focus on.

What is it that establishes something as ok? Is it not the standard set by a given society?

I was actually asking if such discrimination was okay with you -- as a reflection of your society and your religion. It appears from your discussion as though you wish to defend male dominance / chauvinism. Is that correct?

Are you referring to chauvinism as idealistic devotion, ie Nicolas Chauvin, or the modern pejorative, meaning unjustified sexual discrimination?