Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What would a religion founded by a woman look like?
Comments
-
Ah right! There ye go......." as of December 2009 had only three members left."
Celibacy - a step too far for any religion?!0 -
I'd introduce more cake0
-
On a related topic, check out the shakers who mandated celibacy for their members:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Communal_spiritual_family
Spent a day at a Shaker village in Eastern Mass many years ago. Very interesting it was too.
Apparently, if I remember correctly, they used to adopt children and when those children were adults they were given the choice to stay or leave.
They also considered every task an act of worship so did everything to the best of their ability - along strictly enforced gender lines natch so no cooking for men or carpentry for women.
Bloody lovely furniture, can't comment on what their food was like as there weren't any Shaker women left to cook any....0 -
-
Celibacy - a step too far for any religion?!0
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Welcome back!!
Thanks, my jet lag and I are ready to tackle religions and cake :cool:
Interestingly, my friends' wedding had a flying spaghetti monster cake.
Frickin awesome so it was0 -
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
Well, holy god-ess :eek:
0 -
Neutronale wrote: »Well, holy god-ess :eek:
Really, if you're talking the female equivalent of the male Christian god that we're all presented with AND the religion is founded by women, I think you'd be looking at this class of imagery:
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
HOW could I have forgotten Peig? Sacrilege. :eek:
There seems to be a theme today....should all the threads be merged?0 -
-
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:
Oops. I was being tongue in cheek considering we've had all these threads lately about abortion etc. where celibate men get their oar in and then you have a thread where two guys are debating the issue of pregnancy on a fictitious female religion. I only picked your name out as it was already on thread. Sorry for any teeth damage!Bannasidhe wrote: »Spent a day at a Shaker village in Eastern Mass many years ago. Very interesting it was too.
Apparently, if I remember correctly, they used to adopt children and when those children were adults they were given the choice to stay or leave.
They also considered every task an act of worship so did everything to the best of their ability - along strictly enforced gender lines natch so no cooking for men or carpentry for women.
Bloody lovely furniture, can't comment on what their food was like as there weren't any Shaker women left to cook any....
Ah to be the owner of the local takeaway0 -
Lets keep in mind here that all women are the same. AKA stereotypically feminine in a very narrow 20th century western way. Now that we've cleared that up, let's continue being reductive.0
-
Don't mind me folks. Gave up the fags on Saturday and am indeed feeling rather reduced. Wear to teeth is entirely down to the nicotine addiction0
-
-
Advertisement
-
If you look at the entirety of human history and then look at how things have improved so radically after women got the vote I think it is safe to say that religion would have been a lot more inclusive, understanding and concerned with improving people's lives, and less concerned with burning and punishment.0
-
sheikhnguyen wrote: »If you look at the entirety of human history and then look at how things have improved so radically after women got the vote I think it is safe to say that religion would have been a lot more inclusive, understanding and concerned with improving people's lives, and less concerned with burning and punishment.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »If you look at the entirety of human history, the gap between men getting the vote and women getting the vote is pretty small. In Ireland, for example, it's the gap between 1867 and 1922; in the UK, between 1867 and 1928. Anything that happened after women got the vote also happened after men got the vote. Expectations (which were widespread before female suffrage) that women's voting patterns would be radically different from men's have not been borne out. I'd say this particular example, to the extent that it's relevant at all, goes rather against your point.
What I was really getting at was women participating in political decision making. Up until they got the vote they were entirely excluded from power. Up until that point men exercised it pretty much exclusively, I would have thought that was obvious to someone who seems to have a firm grasp of history......0 -
sheikhnguyen wrote: »What I was really getting at was women participating in political decision making. Up until they got the vote they were entirely excluded from power. Up until that point men exercised it pretty much exclusively, I would have thought that was obvious to someone who seems to have a firm grasp of history......
Up until comparatively recently most people, male and female, were entirely excluded from power. Those who did have access to power were mostly male, but as between males and females who had access to power, I don't see the females behaving significantly differently from the males, do you?
In the last two hundred years or so, a wider range of people has had (limited) access to power through the ballot box, though those with their hands directly on the levers of power are still overwhelmingly male. In so far as there has been a change in the way power has been exercised in that period, I'm inclined to ascribe that to democratisation in general rather than to female suffrage in particular, not only because many major changes precede female suffrage but also because there is no evidence that women exercise power any differently from men.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »You're saying Queen Elizabeth I had no power? Marie de Medici? Catherine the Great?
Up until comparatively recently most people, male and female, were entirely excluded from power. Those who did have access to power were mostly male, but as between males and females who had access to power, I don't see the females behaving significantly differently from the males, do you?
In the last two hundred years or so, a wider range of people has had (limited) access to power through the ballot box, though those with their hands directly on the levers of power are still overwhelmingly male. In so far as there has been a change in the way power has been exercised in that period, I'm inclined to ascribe that to democratisation in general rather than to female suffrage in particular, not only because many major changes precede female suffrage but also because there is no evidence that women exercise power any differently from men.
You are being ridiculous. Please don't try and take the hundreds females who have exercised power in a serious way throughout human history and compare it to the tens of thousands of men, it makes you look foolish.
The point I am getting at is that since women have been able to exercise political power at the ballot box (long after men, forget the expanded franchise, men dominated for thousands of years) conditions have improved massively for people as we have focused on social issues, it was women who killed laissez faire politics and it was women who have overwhelmingly voted for (and thus allowed to pass) every single progressive piece of legislation in Ireland and the UK.
If you need further evidence take a look across the ditch, indeed I will even sully myself by quoting that wretched excuse for a human being Ann Coulter "it would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."0 -
Advertisement
-
sheikhnguyen wrote: »Please don't try and take the hundreds females who have exercised power in a serious way throughout human history and compare it to the tens of thousands of men, it makes you look foolish.0
-
-
It would look like Wicca....:)0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »You're saying Queen Elizabeth I had no power? Marie de Medici? Catherine the Great?
Just to be clear - only two women were Regina Regnant (ruling queens) in England - Mary and Elizabeth Tudor (Mary I and Elizabeth I respectively) and Elizabeth was very aware of her precarious position
''I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King of England too'
'"Although I may not be a lioness, I am a lion's cub, and inherit many of his qualities."
Indeed, if their father had not made such an issue about being the 'Prince' chosen by God to rule England in his battle with Rome - rhetoric which his daughter's (both well schooled in Humanist thought and intelligent women) also employed (God chose them which was why they were next in line) it is arguable whether they would have succeeded to the throne. Elizabeth was also fortunate that there was a lack of potential male claimants to her throne and most of the focus against her was religious and based around Mary Stuart - who, along with Mary Tudor and Mary of Guise was the topic of John Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment
of WomenAnd therfore I say, that of necessitie it is, that, this monstriferouse empire of women, (which amongest all enormities, that this day do abound vpon the face of the hole earth, is most detestable and damnable) be openlie reueled and plainlie declared to the world, to the end that some may repent and be saued.
Mary II (also Mary Stuart) was subservient to her husband William I (of Orange) who was himself bound by strictures laid down by Parliament.
Their successor Anne I (Anne Stuart) was further restricted by Parliament. The next women to sit on the throne of the by then United Kingdom was Victoria who was essentially a figurehead. Victoria, as a women, was barred from inheriting the throne of Hanover thereby ending the monarchical ties between the UK and Hanover which had begun with the succession of George I
Although in the UK Parliament had acted to reduce the power of the Monarchy as an institution rather than specifically against female monarchs the same cannot be said of either Russia or France - where women were specifically banned from ruling by law or diktat.
In France it was legally impossible (based on Salic Law) for a women to rule. http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/salic.htm. By the time the French laws of Succession were codified in 1791, the very concept of Monarchy in France had changed - however, Napoleon adopted Salic Law when it came to succession of the Imperial Throne and in 1883 it was explicitly used to prevent the daughter of Henri of Artois, Count of Chambord - main Bourbon claimant to the throne of France- from inheriting her father's claim which passed instead to Juan Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, Count of Montizón as nearest male relative.
Salic Law was introduced in Spain by Louis XIV's grandson, Phillip V.
In Russia Paul I introduced strict primogeniture in the male-line only in 1797 thereby ensuring Russia would never again have a Catherine the Great.
Any power welded by Maria de Medici was a regent to her son Louis (XIII) - it was completely dependent on that relationship and in 1617 Louis exiled his mother and executed her followers.
The examples you gave really are the exceptions that prove the rule that women were, on the whole, barred from exercising political power in their own right.0 -
Ghost Buster wrote: »It would look like Wicca....:)
How would that work when a guy came up with it0 -
sheikhnguyen wrote: »... it was women who have overwhelmingly voted for (and thus allowed to pass) every single progressive piece of legislation in Ireland and the UK
Boys are made from slugs and snails and puppydog tails.
Women are still very under repesented in politics so if men werent also voting for these things they wouldn't pass.
If there are 100 TDs/MPs voting on a bill and it passes by 51% and only 10 of the voting body is female who voted for it?
EDIT: added quote which I somehow left out.0 -
If there are 100 TDs/MPs voting on a bill and it passes by 51% and only 10 of the voting body is female who voted for it?
Reminds me of a story about Margaret Thatcher in which, for once, her entire cabinet of some thirty men were fully united against some policy or other of hers. She leaned forward on her hands, gazed up and down the cabinet table at Number 10 and said "Gentlemen, we are deadlocked".0 -
sheikhnguyen wrote: »You are being ridiculous. Please don't try and take the hundreds females who have exercised power in a serious way throughout human history and compare it to the tens of thousands of men, it makes you look foolish.
The point I am getting at is that since women have been able to exercise political power at the ballot box (long after men, forget the expanded franchise, men dominated for thousands of years) conditions have improved massively for people as we have focused on social issues, it was women who killed laissez faire politics and it was women who have overwhelmingly voted for (and thus allowed to pass) every single progressive piece of legislation in Ireland and the UK.
If you need further evidence take a look across the ditch, indeed I will even sully myself by quoting that wretched excuse for a human being Ann Coulter "it would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
Are you quoting a woman who is an examplar for how women are just as capable of being unpleasant as men out of irony?0 -
-
In relation to the OP - what is particularly interesting to me from all these answers, including Bannasidhe's informative post, is that we're all guessing here as we cannot find a good example from women's history.
Hmmm. We so rarely see women in any position of real power - in my life, the only women who ever had a say in what I should do/how I should do it, are related to me. I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) there is a reason we have never seen a war-mongering, power-grabbing, sexist, homophobic, moralistic and successful religion founded by women before. Now what could it be?0 -
Advertisement
-
I suspect there'd be more sex involved.
We can also look to one of our closet relatives the bonobo ape. They are run by females and they use sex to solve problems rather than fighting like their neighbours the chips. The only taboo with bonobos is sex between mother and son, everyone else is fair game.
Women is one thing, they can be quite liberal, mothers on the other hand are a completely different kettle of fish. There have been female leaders and I think the obligations of leadership breed the leader. If violence is necessary the leader will carry it out. I'd think though that mothers would be much more inclined to remove threats violently. We can see it in parents today, they can be prone to paranoia and instant retribution to any threat.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Just to be clear - only two women were Regina Regnant (ruling queens) in England - Mary and Elizabeth Tudor (Mary I and Elizabeth I respectively) and Elizabeth was very aware of her precarious position
''I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King of England too'
'"Although I may not be a lioness, I am a lion's cub, and inherit many of his qualities."
Indeed, if their father had not made such an issue about being the 'Prince' chosen by God to rule England in his battle with Rome - rhetoric which his daughter's (both well schooled in Humanist thought and intelligent women) also employed (God chose them which was why they were next in line) it is arguable whether they would have succeeded to the throne. Elizabeth was also fortunate that there was a lack of potential male claimants to her throne and most of the focus against her was religious and based around Mary Stuart - who, along with Mary Tudor and Mary of Guise was the topic of John Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment
of Women
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/knox/blast.iv.i.html
Mary II (also Mary Stuart) was subservient to her husband William I (of Orange) who was himself bound by strictures laid down by Parliament.
Their successor Anne I (Anne Stuart) was further restricted by Parliament. The next women to sit on the throne of the by then United Kingdom was Victoria who was essentially a figurehead. Victoria, as a women, was barred from inheriting the throne of Hanover thereby ending the monarchical ties between the UK and Hanover which had begun with the succession of George I
Although in the UK Parliament had acted to reduce the power of the Monarchy as an institution rather than specifically against female monarchs the same cannot be said of either Russia or France - where women were specifically banned from ruling by law or diktat.
In France it was legally impossible (based on Salic Law) for a women to rule. http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/salic.htm. By the time the French laws of Succession were codified in 1791, the very concept of Monarchy in France had changed - however, Napoleon adopted Salic Law when it came to succession of the Imperial Throne and in 1883 it was explicitly used to prevent the daughter of Henri of Artois, Count of Chambord - main Bourbon claimant to the throne of France- from inheriting her father's claim which passed instead to Juan Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, Count of Montizón as nearest male relative.
Salic Law was introduced in Spain by Louis XIV's grandson, Phillip V.
In Russia Paul I introduced strict primogeniture in the male-line only in 1797 thereby ensuring Russia would never again have a Catherine the Great.
Any power welded by Maria de Medici was a regent to her son Louis (XIII) - it was completely dependent on that relationship and in 1617 Louis exiled his mother and executed her followers.
The examples you gave really are the exceptions that prove the rule that women were, on the whole, barred from exercising political power in their own right.
Other exceptions are Catherine of Arragon, Margaret of York, Caterina Sforza and Isabella I (sorry) and while you're right about woman having limited political power (History isn;t my specialism so I can't argue) all of your examples of the removal of Female power are from the Early Modern Period.
I think this quote points out an important issue when looking at woman and the Middle Ages (for England at least), and perhaps power in general because often in my opinion we are too concerned with formal power and titles when looking at the past (and even today, a point that probably doesn't need to be made to politically minded atheists in countries with the separation of church and state)
"Medieval Englishwoman were often powerful, but never authorative"
From Women and Power in the Middle Ages - Mary Erler, Maryanne Kowalesk0 -
Girls are made from sugar and spice and all things nice.
Boys are made from slugs and snails and puppydog tails.
Women are still very under repesented in politics so if men werent also voting for these things they wouldn't pass.
If there are 100 TDs/MPs voting on a bill and it passes by 51% and only 10 of the voting body is female who voted for it?
EDIT: added quote which I somehow left out.
I am primarily refeering to the ballot box. Political parties only started including social stuff in their platforms after women started voting, having realised these were the issues women cared about. Before that it wasn't even considered. So if you look at the UK you will see women generally vote in greater numbers for labour rather than the tories since it is labour that has the more progressive social policies. This can also be seen in america with the dems and repubs.0 -
sheikhnguyen wrote: »You are being ridiculous. Please don't try and take the hundreds females who have exercised power in a serious way throughout human history and compare it to the tens of thousands of men, it makes you look foolish.Bannasidhe wrote: »The examples you gave really are the exceptions that prove the rule that women were, on the whole, barred from exercising political power in their own right.
My point is a much narrower one. Although women were largely excluded from power, they were not entirely excluded. And, if sheikhnguyen’s thesis is correct, where they did have access to power, we would expect to seem them exercising power in a different way from men. And I’m not seeing that myself.
And maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised at this. Sheikhnguyen states her thesis in these terms:sheikhnguyen wrote: »The point I am getting at is that since women have been able to exercise political power at the ballot box (long after men, forget the expanded franchise, men dominated for thousands of years) conditions have improved massively for people as we have focused on social issues, it was women who killed laissez faire politics and it was women who have overwhelmingly voted for (and thus allowed to pass) every single progressive piece of legislation in Ireland and the UK.
Rather than see progressive reform as the result of women’s enfranchisement, I suggest it’s closer to the truth to see women’s enfranchisement as the result of progressive reform. I’d accept, of course, that women’s enfranchisement may have entrenched and intensified the pace of progressive reform - but only when I’d seen the evidence.sheikhnguyen wrote: »If you need further evidence take a look across the ditch, indeed I will even sully myself by quoting that wretched excuse for a human being Ann Coulter "it would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
Secondly, it takes a mindset like Coulter’s to see a Democratic victory as a triumph for the progressive cause. US politics is distinguished by the extraordinary lack of ideological alternatives offered to voters. Probably 80-90% of Democratic politicians would be at home in the Republican party, and vice versa. We could postulate that American women would vote overwhelmingly for a socialist candidate, or even for a social democrat, but we’ll never know, because they’ve never really had the option.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
Rather than see progressive reform as the result of women’s enfranchisement, I suggest it’s closer to the truth to see women’s enfranchisement as the result of progressive reform. I’d accept, of course, that women’s enfranchisement may have entrenched and intensified the pace of progressive reform - but only when I’d seen the evidence.
Although you are right that female sufferage is not the only thing driving progressive reform it is I think the main one. Here is a paper on it.
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/aidt/papers/web/Women_Suffrage.pdf0 -
sheikhnguyen wrote: »Although you are right that female sufferage is not the only thing driving progressive reform it is I think the main one. Here is a paper on it.
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/aidt/papers/web/Women_Suffrage.pdf
A couple of thoughts:
1. The paper shows that women’s enfranchisement is associated with a shift in public spending priorities towards social spending, and away from other forms of spending, and this is both a short-term and a long-term effect.
2. It doesn’t establish your suggestion that women’s enfranchisement is the major cause of such a shift (though, of course, it isn’t inconsistent with your suggestion either).
3. I think it’s interesting that the shift is associated with women’s enfranchisement, rather than with having more women parliamentarians, or ministers, or prime ministers, or presidents, or whatever. As we know, these groups are still overwhelmingly male-dominated in all or almost all countries, so the progressive effect is bottom-up rather than top-down. Leaders - male and female, but still mostly male - are responding to the concerns of the voters, and those concerns shift as women are admitted to the ranks of voters.
4. It’s interesting to map this onto the question raised by the OP. The OP asks about a religion founded by a woman, but obviously we can conceive of a religion being founded by a woman but being supported largely by men, or by men and women more or less equally. If we map what we see in the political world onto the religious world, we shouldn’t be looking at the founders of religions, or at the popes and patriarchs (telling word!) who currently lead them, but at the people in the pews who support the religion through attendance, through participation, through donations, etc.
5. In (most) churches those people don’t have votes, but nevertheless church leaders do have to pay attention to them, because church leaders need their attendance, participation, contributions, etc, in the much same way that politicians need votes. In other words, there’s a similar opportunity for “bottom-up” influence without actually occupying positions of leadership.
6. It is in fact the case that in most churches, at any rate in western society, women dominate (numerically) in the pews. More women attend church than men, more women participate/volunteer in other ways. And, in the Catholic church at any rate, there are far more women than men among the NCO class, as it were; there are more nuns than monks. And all this has been the case for as long as anyone has been counting.
7. And, on the basis of what we see in politics, you’d expect that to translate into churches attaching a high priority to social causes and ministries.
8. And, lo, this is exactly what we find. Churches are heavily engaged in education, medical and social care, relief of poverty, etc. It’s a huge part of church life.
9. All of which suggests that, if the question is reframed as “what would a church influenced by women, and by women’s concerns and priorities, look like?”, then the answer may be “it would look pretty much like the churches we actually have”.
10. This seems surprising, because at first glance you might think that a church responsive to women’s concerns and priorities would not exclude women from positions of leadership, as most do, either explicitly or through culture and practice. But that presumes that women’s concerns and priorities including having access themselves to positions of leadership. This may not be the case. The evidence you’ve presented suggests that, in the political field, women do not use their votes to elect women parliamentarians, presidents, etc; they use them to influence policy and to affect government actions in favour of social priorities and values. And they may be using their bottom-up influence in the churches in exactly the same way.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
......
5. In (most) churches those people don’t have votes, but nevertheless church leaders do have to pay attention to them, because church leaders need their attendance, participation, contributions, etc, in the much same way that politicians need votes. In other words, there’s a similar opportunity for “bottom-up” influence without actually occupying positions of leadership.
.....
I'm not sure about this, P. Would it not be more accurate to say that churches dictate perceived needs, rather than responding to the needs of parishioners, at least as far as policy goes? As one example, if churches really responded to the needs of their flock, would condoms not be now widely available throughout AIDS striken regions, with the full co-operation of the local churches?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Very interesting. Thanks for this.
3. I think it’s interesting that the shift is associated with women’s enfranchisement, rather than with having more women parliamentarians, or ministers, or prime ministers, or presidents, or whatever. As we know, these groups are still overwhelmingly male-dominated in all or almost all countries, so the progressive effect is bottom-up rather than top-down. Leaders - male and female, but still mostly male - are responding to the concerns of the voters, and those concerns shift as women are admitted to the ranks of voters.
Yeah i mentioned that to someone else earlier in the thread. Parties have responded to female voters policy prefrences and those prefrences were generally socially progressive. It is also worth noting that women tend to vote more than men as well further tilting their influence on government.
As for the church thing I wouldn't know what a congregation looks like nowadays I haven't set foot in a church in 10 years.0 -
Fair point. Two responses:
1. There are churches that are involved in AIDS programmes that do involve condoms. We tend to hear about the ones that aren't.
2. You're assuming that ordinary-person-in-the-pew in those regions favours condom-based AIDS strategies. This may not be the case. Just because women can be or are influential in churches doesn't mean that they will use their influence in ways that line up with our enlightened liberal values and priorities.
On the wider point, do churches dictate the perceived needs of their members, or respond to them? Both, of course, given that churches are in the business of moral reflection and ethical formation. But unless we patronisingly assume that all the women in churches are little more than sheep, there's no reason to think that their values and priorities are dictated entirely by their church leaders in an exclusively top-down process.
Sheikhnguyen has given evidence of women's priorities percolations upwards through male-dominated power structures to affect policy and outcomes in measurable ways when it comes to the prioritisation of social issues , and we find that women-populated but male-dominated churches seems to be responsive to the same prioritations in the same way, if not even more so.
Of course, it could be that women care about social issues because their church leaders tell them to, and this affects their voting behaviour. If that's so women are merely the medium through which male church leaders exert an influence over state policy. But that view seems to treat women merely as a conduit between two male power groups. I think it;s more likely that, to the extent that women's value and priorities are distinct from men's, this is because of their experiences and inculturation as women, and they are exerting their influence in similar ways in both church and political affairs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Fair point. Two responses:
1. There are churches that are involved in AIDS programmes that do involve condoms. We tend to hear about the ones that aren't.
2. You're assuming that ordinary-person-in-the-pew in those regions favours condom-based AIDS strategies. This may not be the case. Just because women can be or are influential in churches doesn't mean that they will use their influence in ways that line up with our enlightened liberal values and priorities.
On the wider point, do churches dictate the perceived needs of their members, or respond to them? Both, of course, given that churches are in the business of moral reflection and ethical formation. But unless we patronisingly assume that all the women in churches are little more than sheep, there's no reason to think that their values and priorities are dictated entirely by their church leaders in an exclusively top-down process.
So, you are arguing that organised religions tend to be as responsive to, and as willing to be lead by, their followers as political parties are?
'enlightened liberal views and priorities'? That's an interesting choice of phrase in connection to AIDS-related fatalities, P. Especially if we're talking about the role of organised religion in helping raise AIDS awareness, and preventing the spread of the disease.0 -
So, you are arguing that organised religions tend to be as responsive to, and as willing to be lead by, their followers as political parties are?
(Nitpick: I don't think political parties are sensitive to the views of their followers. I think they are sensitive to the views of voters - and also to the views of donors, and of representatives of the interests that the parties defend or identify with. Party members and activists come a long way down in terms of their influence on policy; their role is to rally and campaign.)
I mean, it could be a complete coincidence that extending the franchise to women leads to a shift in political priorities towards social spending, and that churches whose members and activists are mostly female devote a huge amount of time and attention to social issues and activism, but on the other hand there could be a meaningful pattern here. Why not?'enlightened liberal views and priorities'? That's an interesting choice of phrase in connection to AIDS-related fatalities, P. Especially if we're talking about the role of organised religion in helping raise AIDS awareness, and preventing the spread of the disease.
The first proposition, as I’m sure you know, is controversial, and the second is completely unevidenced.
Even if we take the first proposition to be true, if my suggestion about women’s influence in church is correct we wouldn’t expect churches to be pro-condom in this context unless (a) women generally accepted it as true, and (b) women prioritised it in the way they exerted their influence in churches. In other words, there are other possible explanations for, e.g. the official Catholic position here than “women have no influence”. It might be that many women prefer a HIV prevention strategy which focusses more on promoting sexual fidelity, for example.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »Other exceptions are Catherine of Arragon, Margaret of York, Caterina Sforza and Isabella I (sorry) and while you're right about woman having limited political power (History isn;t my specialism so I can't argue) all of your examples of the removal of Female power are from the Early Modern Period.
I think this quote points out an important issue when looking at woman and the Middle Ages (for England at least), and perhaps power in general because often in my opinion we are too concerned with formal power and titles when looking at the past (and even today, a point that probably doesn't need to be made to politically minded atheists in countries with the separation of church and state)
"Medieval Englishwoman were often powerful, but never authorative"
From Women and Power in the Middle Ages - Mary Erler, Maryanne Kowalesk
The examples I used were actually the examples given by Peregrinus to demonstrate women had power- I just provided the background.
I did expand on the English/British/UK Queens as England/Britain/UK was one of the few realms to have a Regina regnant. Two in total. Sisters. Whose combined reigns lasted for a total of 50 years (1553-1603).
I could equally give background on these latest examples - for example - Catherine of Aragon was Queen Consort. She had no power - the most she had was influence and that was limited. She couldn't influence her husband not to divorce her and declare their daughter illegitimate so one can see her influence was dependent on her relationship to her husband, but he had the power.
Women had influence over powerful men - this is a far cry from having actual power - and, as the case of Mary de Medici shows, this was a double edged sword and should they try and exercise power in their own right they were likely to be removed.
Ironically, one of the few European countries where women did have power and the means to wield it were Gaelic Ireland and Scotland - although they were barred from holding any official titles or shares in the clan lands. They did retain personal possession of any 'portable' goods which included troops and ships and also, due to the dowry system in place, controlled much of the finances of the clan and were the single largest extenders of mortgages on land. Mortgages that were rarely repaid so women came to own land outright on their own behalf.
Nor were they limited to just influencing their husband's decisions - they had the legal right to veto outright any decision they believed was not in the best interests of the Clan.
It is notable that the Irish regions that held out the longest against the Tudors and Anglicisation had powerful women in situ- Gráinne Granuaile Ní Mháille in Mayo, Fionnuala Inghean Dubh Nic Dhomhnaill in Tyrconnell and her mother Agnes Campbell in Tir Eoghan. All of these women commanded sizable military forces independently of their husbands.
The ironic part is that it was Elizabeth I who was on the Throne when England systematically destroyed one of the few cultures that did allow women to exercise power in their own right.
Isabella I - yes. She did have absolute power in Castile - in the regions conquered by herself and Ferdinand they co-ruled.
But again, she is the exception - although her daughter Juana la Loca inherited the Throne of Castile she was prevented from exercising any power by a coalition of church/nobles lead by Archbishop Cisneros who cut off her access to funds rendering her unable to take any action which in turn lead to her father Ferdinand forcing her into naming him regent. At which point the funds became available again...funny that.
When Ferdinand died -technically making Juana the first Regina regnant of Spain, she was again denied any access to power and her son Carlos I (a.k.a Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) actually ruled while Juana was literally locked away against her will (she was barking mad by this point but it is a matter of conjecture if she was mad before being shunted aside or if her treatment was the primary cause).
Juana died in 1555 and from then on Spain had only kings - kings known for being so inbred (Spanish Hapburgs only married other Hapsburgs) they made Juana look like the very picture of mental health. So mental health issues were not, in and of themselves, seen as due cause to sidestep a monarch - provided that monarch was male.
In 1712, the first Bourbon king of Spain introduced a law stating that a female could only inheritances the throne if there were absolutely no males in the family alive - no matter how distantly related. Effectively ensuring Spain would never have another Isabella.
1791 when Russian barred women from the throne is not Early Modern by the way...
Victoria was barred from succeeding to the Throne of Hanover in 1837 - very much considered the Modern Era.
The point is that titles in and of themselves are meaningless without access to the mechanisms of power and the means to wield it. Juana of Spain had the title - but was prevented from ruling by her father, her son and a coalition of the RCC and nobility.
Granuaile, Inghean Dubh and Agnes had no titles - but they lived in a society that allowed women to retain absolute control over their personal property even after marriage and to have the power of veto over decisions which affected the security or status of the Clan.
Deny women control over their own lives (including finances) and you deny them any power.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Not necessarily to the same extent, no, but in something like the same way.
(Nitpick: I don't think political parties are sensitive to the views of their followers. I think they are sensitive to the views of voters - and also to the views of donors, and of representatives of the interests that the parties defend or identify with. Party members and activists come a long way down in terms of their influence on policy; their role is to rally and campaign.)
I mean, it could be a complete coincidence that extending the franchise to women leads to a shift in political priorities towards social spending, and that churches whose members and activists are mostly female devote a huge amount of time and attention to social issues and activism, but on the other hand there could be a meaningful pattern here. Why not?Peregrinus wrote: »Are you assuming (a) that a condom-focussed strategy is the best way of limiting HIV infection, and (b) that women everywhere recognise and agree with this?
The first proposition, as I’m sure you know, is controversial, and the second is completely unevidenced.
Even if we take the first proposition to be true, if my suggestion about women’s influence in church is correct we wouldn’t expect churches to be pro-condom in this context unless (a) women generally accepted it as true, and (b) women prioritised it in the way they exerted their influence in churches. In other words, there are other possible explanations for, e.g. the official Catholic position here than “women have no influence”. It might be that many women prefer a HIV prevention strategy which focusses more on promoting sexual fidelity, for example.0 -
Ok I'm not arguing that woman were in anyway equal in terms of power to men as that is clearly false, I am arguing that the view that elite woman were effectively powerless isn't necessarily true especially in comparison to the vast bulk of the population without any power (the one of the points Pereginuis was making i think). I have a strong dislike for all encompassing points when talking about history its like saying there was no powerful Catholics post reformation in England or similarly that every African descendant in the Caribbean was disadvantaged by slavery (the Howard Family in the former, the Afro-Caribbean slave owners in the latter)
The reason I brought up the Early Modern thing (which I'd count as perhaps 1500/50-1750/1800) is because you could consider that this period is defined by the centralization and rationalization of power and the movement away from the 'feudal', to a system where power resides in the state and its systems to a much greater extent thus making official "authority" more important.Bannasidhe wrote: »1791 when Russian barred women from the throne is not Early Modern by the way...
I think we'l agree to disagree on that one (am I off by two years because of the French Revolution, I like rounding up )Bannasidhe wrote: »The point is that titles in and of themselves are meaningless without access to the mechanisms of power and the means to wield it. Juana of Spain had the title - but was prevented from ruling by her father, her son and a coalition of the RCC and nobility.
Deny women control over their own lives (including finances) and you deny them any power.
I'm arguing exactly the same point in reverse I think, in that titles are only an indicator of authority not power and that in the pre-modern period they are much less important, and thus the argument that they were not able to hold positions of authority does not imply they are powerless.
I think we have different views on what power is, and I also think that phrases like "control over their own lives" are a bit meaningless when talking about societies and era's where vassalage, servitude and loyalty were integral parts of life from the lowest to the highest with the exception of the very apex of society.
I'm aware of the fact that woman were capable of holding power in Gaelic Ireland, I was restricting my answer to the wider European society/law rather than that under the Brehon system. as it was rather exceptional.
There were powerful woman in Ireland and they did have greater rights however I'd also argue that the system of Tanistry and Septs whether a cause or effect of the chronic instability among the Gaelic Elites resulted in a massively high rate of change of 'leaders of meaning that there would be a greater raw number of females with power even if it isn't a particularly high percentage as is the case.
In situations under brehon law where the situation of succession was more stable you don't see woman with great power (I'm thinking here of the Mcarthy Mor but there is another example that I can't remember).
As an aside one of my pet hates is the interpretation of Brehon law and Irish society as more caring/egalitarian than other systems of the time (leaving aside the problem with application of some of the amazingly specific fines for cattle wandering X distance and similar examples that may indicate what survives in the texts was never meant to be applied), it was less sexist but enshrined the value of humans as having less in a way common law and church law did not (a good example is the restorative justice element of the law on rape, with the exclusion of certain classes from any bloodprice and a steep sliding scale for different social classes).
I'm not really sure what the relevance of the Tyrconnel and Mayo holdouts is being female is? Red Hugh O'Neil the greatest threat to plantation had more experience of the English Court than many 'pro-english' gaelic lords.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »Ok I'm not arguing that woman were in anyway equal in terms of power to men as that is clearly false, I am arguing that the view that elite woman were effectively powerless isn't necessarily true especially in comparison to the vast bulk of the population without any power (the one of the points Pereginuis was making i think). I have a strong dislike for all encompassing points when talking about history its like saying there was no powerful Catholics post reformation in England or similarly that every African descendant in the Caribbean was disadvantaged by slavery (the Howard Family in the former, the Afro-Caribbean slave owners in the latter)
The reason I brought up the Early Modern thing (which I'd count as perhaps 1500/50-1750/1800) is because you could consider that this period is defined by the centralization and rationalization of power and the movement away from the 'feudal', to a system where power resides in the state and its systems to a much greater extent thus making official "authority" more important.
I think we'l agree to disagree on that one (am I off by two years because of the French Revolution, I like rounding up )
I'm arguing exactly the same point in reverse I think, in that titles are only an indicator of authority not power and that in the pre-modern period they are much less important, and thus the argument that they were not able to hold positions of authority does not imply they are powerless.
I think we have different views on what power is, and I also think that phrases like "control over their own lives" are a bit meaningless when talking about societies and era's where vassalage, servitude and loyalty were integral parts of life from the lowest to the highest with the exception of the very apex of society.
I'm aware of the fact that woman were capable of holding power in Gaelic Ireland, I was restricting my answer to the wider European society/law rather than that under the Brehon system. as it was rather exceptional.
There were powerful woman in Ireland and they did have greater rights however I'd also argue that the system of Tanistry and Septs whether a cause or effect of the chronic instability among the Gaelic Elites resulted in a massively high rate of change of 'leaders of meaning that there would be a greater raw number of females with power even if it isn't a particularly high percentage as is the case.
In situations under brehon law where the situation of succession was more stable you don't see woman with great power (I'm thinking here of the Mcarthy Mor but there is another example that I can't remember).
As an aside one of my pet hates is the interpretation of Brehon law and Irish society as more caring/egalitarian than other systems of the time (leaving aside the problem with application of some of the amazingly specific fines for cattle wandering X distance and similar examples that may indicate what survives in the texts was never meant to be applied), it was less sexist but enshrined the value of humans as having less in a way common law and church law did not (a good example is the restorative justice element of the law on rape, with the exclusion of certain classes from any bloodprice and a steep sliding scale for different social classes).
I'm not really sure what the relevance of the Tyrconnel and Mayo holdouts is being female is? Red Hugh O'Neil the greatest threat to plantation had more experience of the English Court than many 'pro-english' gaelic lords.
Lots here to answer later - maybe we should move it to a new thread?
But It was Red Hugh O'Donnell not O'Neill.
Hugh O'Neill (or shall we call him Tyrone) was completely in the pockets of the English for most of his life and was severely limited in his area of control by Turlough Luineach - The O'Neill, who was married to Agnes Campbell - the troops and the money to pay them which kept the English out were hers and under her command. Even the English recognised this.
Red Hugh O'Donnell was the son of Inghean Dubh (grandson of Agnes) - it was her troops and money that protected Tyrconnell again under her command. Mother and grandmother were instrumental in ending the O'Donnell/O'Neill feud.
Granuaile was married to the last MacWillam (lords of Mayo) to exercise independent rule - guess whose troops and money were used...:p
Her son Tibbóid and son in law MacDeamham an Chorain led the opposition to the Tudor conquest of Mayo - guess whose ships, troops and money was used....
It might be coincidence that the 3 regions that remained stubbornly Gaelic long after the rest had fallen were also the 3 regions where control was effectively in the hands of women... it might also be coincidence that the conquest of each of these regions coincided with the deaths of these women...or it might not.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't see how it would be any different.
However, if we accept the premise that it would be essentially different because of the founder's gender, then we have to consider what conditions it arose in. If you argue that a woman-founded religion would be inherently more peaceful, then we wouldn't have any of the big monotheistic religions in their current form if they had been founded by women, all had to fight a lot for their existence at various times, and probably wouldn't have survived.0 -
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Lots here to answer later - maybe we should move it to a new thread?
But It was Red Hugh O'Donnell not O'Neill.
OoopsBannasidhe wrote: »It might be coincidence that the 3 regions that remained stubbornly Gaelic long after the rest had fallen were also the 3 regions where control was effectively in the hands of women... it might also be coincidence that the conquest of each of these regions coincided with the deaths of these women...or it might not.
To bring it mildly back on topic does this mean one could consider that a religion founded by woman instead of the stereotype might be more warlike, more uncompromising and more resistant to change even when faced with the inevitable :P
ps exception that proves the rule has a rather different meaning to what i thought too until recently0
Advertisement