What would a religion founded by a woman look like?

Freiheit

Ok I know every woman is different and not all are gentle peace loving,nurturing etc,but just reading Caitlin Moran's 'How to be a woman' and she notes how every religion was invented by a man, with women doing things that men don't,no men wear the Burqua she laments,said she might consider it if men did it.:)

Anyway though how could a female conceived religion look like? maybe nobody would have listened to a woman 2000 years ago,but surely they would now?

Maybe some of us here could start a religion?.

Happy New year ,God bless you all!:)

K x

Peregrinus

You don't have to do thought experiments on this one. You've got Christian Science founded by Mary Baker Eddy, the Shakers founded by "Mother Anne", Theosophy founded by Helena Blavatsky, Tenrikyo founded by Nakayama Miki and (at a pinch) Heaven's Gate, founded by Bonnie Nettles along with Marshall Applewhite. Ellen G White was one of the founders of Seventh-Day Adventism.

OK, one or two of these are churches or denominations rather than fully-fledged religions in there own right, but I suggest they're still helpful in illustrating how women claiming or holding religious authority can wield it.

Chuck Stone

Churches would be more comfy. Lots of cushions and scented candles... knock a wall down.. install a wood burning stove...

philologos

Freiheit wrote: »

Ok I know every woman is different and not all are gentle peace loving,nurturing etc,but just reading Caitlin Moran's 'How to be a woman' and she notes how every religion was invented by a man, with women doing things that men don't,no men wear the Burqua she laments,said she might consider it if men did it.:)

Anyway though how could a female conceived religion look like? maybe nobody would have listened to a woman 2000 years ago,but surely they would now?

Maybe some of us here could start a religion?.

Happy New year ,God bless you all!:)

K x

Not every religion was invented by man, because not all creeds are invented

You could set up another religion but it would be utterly futile.

kiffer

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Churches would be more comfy. Lots of cushions and scented candles... knock a wall down.. install a wood burning stove...

But you'd have to move the furniture all the time...
Wait positive stereotypes! Positive!
Hmmm.
I think it would go pretty much the same as all religions go.
One day she'd say something good, "don't fight"
The next she'd say "those people are bad, I don't like them"
And two hundred years later you'd have people killing the ****e out of each other because of a misplaced comma.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

Not every religion was invented by man, because not all creeds are invented

You could set up another religion but it would be utterly futile.

That's a terribly defeatist attitude, philo. Sure they probably said the same thing to Saul of Tarsus, and look at the success he had! :P

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Not every religion was invented by man, because not all creeds are invented

midlands paranormal researcher

great topic to talk about, to be honest i think the rc church would be a relaxed in canon law and teachings,being a ex member of group that was mentioned in the de vinic codes where women outnumber men i feel the world and the churches would be a place of alot more love and smelly candles.

magicbastarder

why does everyone assume they'll be nicer religions?
take nuns for example. they're not exactly hippies.

seamus

Nuns in reality though are slaves to a patriarchal indoctrination.

It's a bit of an odd thought experiment, as it presumes that the kind of women with the qualities required to found a religion would differ fundamentally from the men.

It's the same line of argument which suggests that women in charge of governments would be fairer and less war mongering. Then Maggie Thatcher arrived and blew that argument out of the water.

Beruthiel

seamus wrote: »

Then Maggie Thatcher arrived and blew that argument out of the water.

She was a genetic anomaly and you can't blame half the planets population for that!

magicbastarder

you could argue that thatcher was the way she was by having to out-testosterone the men.

or that she was a genetic anomaly.
thatcher related pop fact (which i'm gonna shoehorn in here); the belgrano was the last ship still in service which had survived the attack on pearl harbor.

doctoremma

Well, the congregation would be mostly male as the head honcho would never let anyone prettier than her join...

kiffer

Beruthiel wrote: »

She was a genetic anomaly and you can't blame half the planets population for that!

Same sorts would rise to power though.
or power corrupts...

pauldla

I have dim memories of reading about various pre-Christian religions that were quite feminocentric. One fact that stuck was that women were given the extremely important task of brewing beer, and that a variety of beers would be brewed throughout the year, for different purposes. One beer was even brewed especially for childbirth, both to aid in the birth and to wash the child (beer having quite good antiseptic properties). If I recall, this was called 'groaning ale'. Don't push me on a source for any of this, though: it may be from Peter Brown's enjoyable Man Walks Into A Pub: A Social History of Beer, but I wouldn't bet my pint on it.

getz

many religions have woman gods,passed and present,druidism,hindoism,vestal virgins[who were the first to hang crosses around their necks],and wiccan,[ mother earth.]

Sarky

I suspect there'd be more sex involved.

SebBerkovich

I'm pretty sure it would have a much better PR department than any religions today.. If The Catholic Church had better PR they'd be dangerous..

Sarky

SebBerkovich wrote: »

If The Catholic Church had better PR they'd be dangerous..

Remember the superbowl episode of The Simpsons where there was an ad full of shapely young ladies very suggestively cleaning a man's car and filling the fuel tank to rock music, which ended with someone saying "The Catholic church: We've made a few... changes."?

Pope Benny needs PR guys who can do that.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

You could set up another religion but it would be utterly futile.

I'm sure they said that to L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Jesus and Moses too.

Morag

One which respected men and women equally and revered Gods and Goddesses equally?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Valiente

Doreen Edith Dominy Valiente (4 January 1922 – 1 September 1999), who also went under the craft name Ameth,was an influential English Wiccan who was involved in a number of different early traditions, including Gardnerianism, Cochrane's Craft and the Coven of Atho.

Responsible for writing much of the early Gardnerian religious liturgy, in later years she also helped to play a big part in bringing the Neopagan religion of Wicca to wider public attention through the publication of a string of books on the subject.

Having had a significant influence in the history of Wicca, she has been referred to as "the mother of modern Witchcraft" and is today is widely revered in the Wiccan and wider Neopagan community.

Sycopat

I am not convinced at all that men and women are somehow fundamentally mentally different, so aside from gender swapping the major players and swapping the balance of power in a religion I doubt it would be much different.

To say their would be more smelly candles and cushions in a typical church is also to completely ignore the many modern churches (And lets be fair, I'm thinking catholicism but so are most of you) obsession with ridiculous fabrics, incense and jewellery.

ShooterSF

The only genuine difference I can imagine might be more openness to birth control if it was a religion that not only was founded by a woman but also went down a similar path of dividing up the sexes with one getting preferential treatment.

pauldla

Sycopat wrote: »

To say their would be more smelly candles and cushions in a typical church is also to completely ignore the many modern churches (And lets be fair, I'm thinking catholicism but so are most of you) obsession with ridiculous fabrics, incense and jewellery.

Ach, that's probably all down to local church groups looking after the church, most of which seem to be dominated by middle aged women. If the churches were only maintained by men, there would probably be back issues of the Catholic Herald strewn all over the place (left open at the racing pages, too), half-finished bottles of altar wine in the confession boxes, and all the kneeling boards would be perpetually left up.

Dades

All the hierarchy would wear dresses and fancy hats.

Oh, wait...

condra

Fair chance men would be treated like dirt.

kiffer

condra wrote: »

Fair chance men would be treated like dirt.

It would depend on what sort of people set up religions, and why...
What sorts of people set up religions?
Crazy True Believers, who think they've heard the truth after eating some nice mushrooms, or what ever.
ConArtists, who want money, power, status, etc.
People who have had a genuine revalation... Sure, might happen, but how would anyone tell the difference? (No, a 2000 year old book doesn't cut it, no your personal feeling doesn't cut it)
People who have thought long and hard and experienced life and want to help people, but who may or may not actually have good or practical ideas.

What happens next depends on the followers and the teachings and time.
There are so many factors.

I think if you got a randomly mixed group of modern women in a room and asked them to design a religion you'd get something that wasn't half bad... At first.

swampgas

<tangent>
Funnily enough, a number of friends & relatives from the UK and Holland are rather perplexed when they visit West Cork at the number of Marian shrines about the place. More than one has commented that it's as if Irish people worshipped Mary and not Jesus, and have asked whether this goes back to the worship of mother goddesses in pre-Christian times.

Haven't really looked into it, but every time I drive past one of them (and there's a huge one just outside Clonakilty) it makes me wonder. Not that having female gods would necessarily imply a female priesthood.
</tangent>

Morag

and have asked whether this goes back to the worship of mother goddesses in pre-Christian times.

Yes and the queen of heaven cult.

Bannasidhe

swampgas wrote: »

<tangent>
Funnily enough, a number of friends & relatives from the UK and Holland are rather perplexed when they visit West Cork at the number of Marian shrines about the place. More than one has commented that it's as if Irish people worshipped Mary and not Jesus, and have asked whether this goes back to the worship of mother goddesses in pre-Christian times.

Haven't really looked into it, but every time I drive past one of them (and there's a huge one just outside Clonakilty) it makes me wonder. Not that having female gods would necessarily imply a female priesthood.
</tangent>

As my Nan always said 'Why would you ask the boy for a favour when you could ask the boy's mother?'

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

All the hierarchy would wear dresses and fancy hats.

Oh, wait...

Good point. The Catholic church - founded by men, run by men, bastion of institutionalised discrimination against women - is one of the few environments in which it is socially acceptable, and even admired, for men to frock up in gorgeous fabrics of elaborate design, while at the same time eschewing the stereotype of men as permanently randy, and ready to sleep with anything with a pulse. Perhaps it's only in such a male-dominated environment in which men feel safe in transgressing the usual stricture of conventional expectations of masculinity.

So perhaps in a female-dominated church, women could escape the expactations of femininity and give free rein to the masculine side of their natures. I shudder to think what that would involve, but Margaret Thatcher has already been mentioned in this thread!

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

<tangent>. . . and have asked whether this goes back to the worship of mother goddesses in pre-Christian times.

<even more of a tangent>Goddess-worshipping religions are not necessarily benevolent environments as far as women are concerned. The primary example is Hinduism, which has a vast pantheon of goddesses and which also favoured widow-burning. Women who are perceived to embody or image divinity are not necessarily loved; they may just as well be feared and hated.

carlarua

that was a potentially very interesting discussion going down the plughole.

Many religious women are scary in their fundamentalism.
What deity are women supposed to believe in ? Male, female of both ? I wouldn't think it would be necessarily a peaceful religion.

Newaglish

What's the name of that cult up in Donegal? The house of prayer? It's kinda Catholic I suppose but it was set up by a woman

Obliq

Newaglish wrote: »

What's the name of that cult up in Donegal? The house of prayer? It's kinda Catholic I suppose but it was set up by a woman

http://www.sistersofmercy.ie/ireland_britain/northern/ourwork/w_houses.cfm

Catherine McAuley.

It's catholic though. Is that the cult you meant?!

seamus

Obliq wrote: »

http://www.sistersofmercy.ie/ireland_britain/northern/ourwork/w_houses.cfm

Catherine McAuley.

It's catholic though. Is that the cult you meant?!

It seems to me that women who set up and front "fringe" religious organisations like the one above and like Evil Ui Chroibin, at least tend to do it out of religious conviction and vehement belief in scripture.

Men on the other hand who either form or get to the top of religious organisations appear to be more interested in the power and influence of such a position than the upholding of religious doctrine.

Maybe that's just perception rather than reality.

swampgas

carlarua wrote: »

that was a potentially very interesting discussion going down the plughole.

Many religious women are scary in their fundamentalism.
What deity are women supposed to believe in ? Male, female of both ? I wouldn't think it would be necessarily a peaceful religion.

There was a book about terrorism, years ago, called "Shoot the women first", based on the idea that anti-terrorist police units had learned that female terrorists were more fanatical than their male colleagues, much less likely to surrender, and therefore more dangerous in a showdown.

AFAIR there were a lot of criticisms of the book, but at least it's fair to say that there was a perception in some quarters that fanatical women were somehow more dangerous than fanatical men.

pwurple

I can't believe anyone is taking this thread even half seriously. Surely it is obvious to anyone who has met more than one woman, that all women are not a homogenous mass of unified thinking.

Obliq

swampgas wrote: »

There was a book about terrorism, years ago, called "Shoot the women first", based on the idea that anti-terrorist police units had learned that female terrorists were more fanatical than their male colleagues, much less likely to surrender, and therefore more dangerous in a showdown.

AFAIR there were a lot of criticisms of the book, but at least it's fair to say that there was a perception in some quarters that fanatical women were somehow more dangerous than fanatical men.

Possibly. From Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex&page=2

" research by Archer and sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire calls this scenario into question. Surprisingly, their analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women’s rates of physical aggression are slightly higher. This apparent equality is not solely a result of women fighting back, because it holds even for altercations that women start."

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Possibly. From Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex&page=2

" research by Archer and sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire calls this scenario into question. Surprisingly, their analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women’s rates of physical aggression are slightly higher. This apparent equality is not solely a result of women fighting back, because it holds even for altercations that women start."

This doesn't surprise me. There is this notion that women - being designed by nature to be 'nurturing' and 'caring' and, well, mothers - are nearly incapable of violence. Which is as utter tosh as saying men cannot be nurturing or caring or gentle.
Of course women can be violent - take a trip down one of our city streets any weekend night and watch the 'laddettes' go for each other and anyone who even glances in their direction.

Religion, to me, is about power and control and I have no reason to suspect that a matriarchal religion wouldn't attract some Thatcher like figures who would create a hierarchy with themselves on top.

Obliq

I've no difficulty believing that either - nor that female terrorists are more lethal than the male.

There's also a notion that females can be more violent because of their mothering/nurturing. I can't remember where I heard it, but sounds about right - a mother will fight to the death for her infant (actually, I may have seen it on a nature programme!) more readily than a father.

Anyhow, I can well imagine that a religion founded by a woman would be just as ridiculously power crazed as the patriarchal ones currently popular worldwide. With some different but just as arbitrary rules.

Instead of single mothers having to walk down the side of the church to get communion, it would be men who snore loudly that were shunned. Or fart loudly. And indeed, builder's cracks should be outlawed. I suggest the onesy would work for this. Thoughts? :pac:

strobe

ShooterSF wrote: »

The only genuine difference I can imagine might be more openness to birth control if it was a religion that not only was founded by a woman but also went down a similar path of dividing up the sexes with one getting preferential treatment.

I'd very much doubt that. Well depending n the circumstances I guess. Going forth and multiplying is beneficial to any tribe, as numbers == strength. This is true whether it's a woman steering the tribe or a man. Any prophet with their thinking cap on isn't going make any commandments that would do anything other than ensure that when the tribe across the way come calling, she can put more fighters on the field than they can.

I don't buy that opposition to birth control had its origins in men wanting to control women, or a reverence for the right to life of the unborn, or any such thing, pure military pragmatism, I reckon.

ShooterSF

strobe wrote: »

I'd very much doubt that. Well depending n the circumstances I guess. Going forth and multiplying is beneficial to any tribe, as numbers == strength. This is true whether it's a woman steering the tribe or a man. Any prophet with their thinking cap on isn't going make any commandments that would do anything other than ensure that when the tribe across the way come calling, she can put more fighters on the field than they can.

I don't buy that opposition to birth control had its origins in men wanting to control women, or a reverence for the right to life of the unborn, or any such thing, pure military pragmatism, I reckon.

But a problem does arise where leaders of the church are incapacitated due to pregnancy and yes you could go down the catholic church's celibacy approach but women like sex as much as men (imo) but unlike men it might be more obvious if they break the rules! I suppose you could secretly provide birth control to your priests etc. but I dunno!

Anywho I'd say Obliq's teeth are grinding at this point of two men discussing the issues of women priests having sex :pac: (I kid, I kid!)

Newaglish

Obliq wrote: »

http://www.sistersofmercy.ie/ireland_britain/northern/ourwork/w_houses.cfm

Catherine McAuley.

It's catholic though. Is that the cult you meant?!

I meant this place:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Prayer,_Achill#mw-mf-search

Although I didn't describe it particularly well!

Sarky

If Christianity had been spread by Irish women, we'd have a wooden spoon instead of a crucifix, and stigmata would only appear on the buttocks.

Obliq

ShooterSF wrote: »

But a problem does arise where leaders of the church are incapacitated due to pregnancy and yes you could go down the catholic church's celibacy approach but women like sex as much as men (imo) but unlike men it might be more obvious if they break the rules! I suppose you could secretly provide birth control to your priests etc. but I dunno!

Anywho I'd say Obliq's teeth are grinding at this point of two men discussing the issues of women priests having sex :pac: (I kid, I kid!)

Excuse me? No. They're grinding at the assumptions you make here about me.

When/where have I ever given any of you a reason to think discussing women is off limits? I do remember having a proper go at people in general discussing suicidal ideation as if it was a legitimate ambition for women who don't want to be pregnant. Otherwise, I think I've left ye all with enough rope to effectively hang yourselves without my help. (I kid, I kid) :pac:

Obliq

strobe wrote: »

I don't buy that opposition to birth control had its origins in men wanting to control women, or a reverence for the right to life of the unborn, or any such thing, pure military pragmatism, I reckon.

I'd say you're right - souls for the church and all that (by their own admission actually). However, that does require controlling women's reproductive choices, I think you'll find.

robindch

The A+-related posts have been moved to the A+ thread.

Now, back on topic please!

strobe

Obliq wrote: »

I'd say you're right - souls for the church and all that (by their own admission actually). However, that does require controlling women's reproductive choices, I think you'll find.

Oh certainly, and men's. Requires being able to dictate to all society how they approach reproduction.

Obliq

Yeah, but a religion founded by a woman would certainly be taking into account that the men haven't exactly got the same consequences resulting from control of reproduction. I reckon that particular religion would die out pretty quickly!

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

Yeah, but a religion founded by a woman would certainly be taking into account that the men haven't exactly got the same consequences resulting from control of reproduction. I reckon that particular religion would die out pretty quickly!

On a related topic, check out the shakers who mandated celibacy for their members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Communal_spiritual_family