Do (many) religions tend to demean women?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:45 pm

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

Examples?

Justification?

KenRU · Post by **KenRU** » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:58 am

KenRU · Post by **KenRU** » Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:11 pm

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:40 pm

KenRU · Post by **KenRU** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:03 am

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:27 pm

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:37 pm

.

bluethread wrote: 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 · Post by **bluethread** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:28 am

Zzyzx wrote: .
bluethread wrote: 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 · Post by **Zzyzx** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:14 am

.

bluethread wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
bluethread wrote: 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?

bluethread wrote: 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.

bluethread wrote: 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 · Post by **KenRU** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:24 pm

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:26 pm

Zzyzx wrote:
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?

bluethread wrote: 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.

bluethread wrote: 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?