BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?

Subject: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:42 PM

I had a random thought that doesn't have any facts to back it up. Actually for me - that's not uncommon. But I figured that when the general population worships a male deity that it's a lot more likely that woman will be treated poorly and considered second class citizens. And if the popular god is female or non-gender specific that the women will have a better chance of being considered equals. And this is also true where women are the high priests or high ranking members of the religious structure.

Has anyone run across this concept before?

Now I know a lot of you consider religion to be the scourge of the earth. The worst possible element to plague mankind. We have a lot of threads where that topic has been explored - go ahead and find one. But can we please stick to the topic I've suggested? I'd appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:49 PM

Sounds logical to me. As for the concept I don't have the knowledge to comment but I am sure LH will be along shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 06:21 PM

My Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities lists around 10,000 different ones of them, and actually appears to divide pretty much evenly between male-ish and female-ish. (In some cases a sex is somewhat indistinct.)

Although the premise would seem logical, there does seem in some cases to have been contradictory evidence.

Except in the truly monotheistic conventions, nearly all deities were "god of ..." or "goddess of ...," with the "object" over which a given deity was the guardian being definitive with respect to the powers presumed and the forms of worship demanded.

Nearly all female deities that I can bring to mind off-hand were goddess of [something] related to the obligations of women as defined/imposed by the men, so by being dedicated to a goddess the women were "permitted" to praise being womanly without actually enduring the drudgery of acting as women were otherwise expected to do (i.e. clean the house, tend the hearth, and bear children). (Sort of like nuns?)

A possible exception might be Athena (the huntress); but this might just be an extension of the concept that the "wife should bring the beer and snacks" when the game's on.

I'm sure other interpretations will come up here. It should be interesting.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 06:36 PM

Hindu India is not exactly a shining light for sex equality, and the worshippers of Kali/Durga are no more progressive than the national norm.

China had Kuan Yin/Kwannon as its most worshipped deity. And footbinding and female infanticide.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 06:41 PM

10,000 different deities lists? OMGs!

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 07:19 PM

We should be looking at supreme deities here, not those in charge of one thing or another. Ishtar/Isis/Astarte, for example, or the "Mother Goddess" found in neolithic caves, or (perhaps) the Sheila-na-Gig.

But there has been so much clouding over the centuries, by time and by those with an ax to grind, that I don't think that there can be any clear discussion. Try to get into a discussion about the role of the Magdalene in Christianity -- and that's recent compared to some of the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 07:35 PM

Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russel Coulter, Oxford University Press, 2001, 597 pp, ISBN 13 978-0-19-514504-5 (paperback) - if you'd like to look it up at the library.

There was an earlier edition by Charles alone, MacFarland & Co, 2000, although he's shown as deceased 1997.

The preface says "more than 10,000 entries" but apparently counts deities known by multiple names and/or variants as a single entry, usually showing the best known name with a listing of common variants. The total of "names of deities" would possibly be somewhat larger.

There is no entry for "God" as a self-complete name, although both "God of Everything" and "Goddess of Everything" are both shown (among other names) as referents to the Greek "Chaos."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 08:03 PM

I have not read it all, yet, but O Mother Sun: A New View of the Cosmic Feminine by Patricia Monaghan puts forth some interesting info on women in sacredness before the Greeks. She calls it the Apollo Conspiracy.

That is one of her earlier works. For more on goddesses, etc. CLICK HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 08:14 PM

Ariadne didn't do too well in that department. Medea (although she got away with murdering her children) ended up on the short end of the stick.
India has the most and most powerful goddesses I know of. Look how well women do there - mentioned above.
But all in all, deities in general seem to look on mankind as play things.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 08:15 PM

We should be looking at supreme deities here, not those in charge of one thing or another ...

The problem with this is that there are no ancient deities that have been universally considered "supreme" across the spectrum of cultures in which they were worshipped, so it is necessary to distingusih what they were the "deity of" in whichever culture to which we attempt to attribute an "equal status for women."

Ishtar was known by dozens of names, in different times and places, and in most places the "religions" associated with her name were centered on specific interests. The same for Isis and Astarte.

"Mother Goddess" is a name associated quite prominently with numerous deities, reinforcing that it was a central ingredient in the identity of the deities - and consistent with "worship it instead of doing the scut-work," as previously suggested.

In most cultures that had a "supreme deitiy" there were multiple other deities, often his/her offspring; and much of the religious history (lore/fable) of these religions consists of narratives about how the kids made fools of daddy & mommy.

The interest here, as I see it, is in whether female deities, regardless of status withing the heirachy of deities in a given culture, were sufficiently respected to pass status as "real people" to females who worshipped them.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 08:33 PM

If I were forced to choose between a specifically male or a specifically female diety, I'd be more inclined to opt for a female one.

Be that as it may, I am not forced to choose between them, and I think it's ridiculous to define "God" as being exclusively male OR female. There's a male and a female side to reality, they're both equally important, they work together toward a common balance, and it's ludicrous to think that only one of them can comprise the totality of the enormous concept which is superficially labelled (in our present language) as "God". The word "God" is just a mental/cultural label. Labels are not the thing they designate. They are an arbitrary name that gets held up like a sign that points toward the thing they designate. That thing itself is beyond the reach of language or labels.

The arguments people have, here and elsewhere, are about the outward labels....not the thing the labels point toward.

***

Wesley - I'm not sure whether a culture with a non-gender specific God would be inclined to treat women better because of it. Not necessarily, I wouldn't think. Cultures with a female God might be inclined to treat women better. Probably, I would think.

One reason that almost all cultures sent men off to hunt and to fight wars but kept the women at home was this: women secure the future of the race because they bear the children, while men are relatively expendable. A society can lose most of its men and still be viable, but if it loses most of its women, then it's teetering on the edge of extinction, and if it loses all its women, it's finished. That makes women's lives considerably more important (in terms of social survival) than the lives of their men, accordingly their lives were better protected in most societies. That's just common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 09:48 PM

Oh, bull, LH. You know there ain't no such thing as "common sense." If it were common you wouldn't remark on it. Now "good sense" is another matter....

           Since we have only ruins and remains from Minoan culture, we can only guess at their religious practices. We have no scriptures, no prayers, no books of ritual; all we have are objects and fragments all of which only hint at a rich and complex religious life and symbolic system behind their broken exteriors. The most apparent characteristic of Minoan religion was that it was polytheistic and matriarchal, that is, a goddess religion; the gods were all female, not a single male god has been identified until later periods. Many religious and cultural scholars now believe that almost all religions began as matriarchal religions, even the Hebrew religion (where Yahweh is frequently referred to as physically female), but adopted patriarchal models in later incarnations. What precipitated the transition from goddess religions to god religions is still subject to much debate and controversy, but the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle because of agriculture may have fundamentally reoriented society towards patriarchal organization and the subsequent rethinking of goddess religions. It is certain, however, that urbanization dramatically precipitated gender inequality as human life suddenly assumed a double quality: public life and private life. The domination of public life, that is, administration, rule, and military organization, by men certainly produced a reorientation of religious beliefs. The Cretans, however, do not seem to have evolved either gender inequality nor adapted their religion to a male-centered universe. The legacy of the goddess religion seems to still be alive today. Both Greece and Crete are Greek Orthodox Christian. In Greece, however, only women regularly swear by the name of the Virgin Mary, while in Crete both men and women swear by her name, particularly the epithet, "Panagia," or "All-Holy."

   The head of the Minoan pantheon seems to have been an all-powerful goddess which ruled everything in the universe. This deity was a mother deity, that is, her relationship to the world was as mother to offspring, which is a fundamentally different relation than the relationship of the father to his offspring. This is an impossibly difficult difference to really understand, but Sigmund Freud in Moses and Monotheism hints at its fundamental aspect. The relationship between a mother and offspring is a real, biological relationship that can be concretely demonstrated (the child comes from the mother). The relationship to the father is also a biological relationship, but it can only be inferred (because the child doesn't come directly from the father's body). It is inferred symbolically, that is, the child looks like the father. One aspect of goddess religion, then, is a fundamentally closer relationship, kinship and otherwise, to the deity, wheras god religions tend to stress distance. These, however, are only guesses because so little comes down to us about goddess religions of antiquity.


           It's difficult to assess the nature of the mother-goddess of Crete. There are numerous representations of goddesses, which leads to the conclusion that the Cretans were polytheistic, while others argue that these represent manifestations of the one goddess. There are several goddesses we can distinguish, though. The first one we call "The Lady of the Beasts," or the "Huntress"; this goddess is represented as mastering or overcoming animals. In a later incarnation, she becomes "The Mountain Mother," who is standing on a mountain and apparently protects the animals and the natural world. The most popular goddess seems to be the "Snake Goddess," who has snakes entwined on her body or in her hands. Since the figurine is only found in houses and in small shrines in the palaces, we believe that she is some sort of domestic goddess or goddess of the house (a kind of guardian angel–in many regions of the world, including Greece, the household snake is worshipped and fed as a domestic guardian angel). But the household goddess also seems to have taken the form of a small bird, for numerous shrines are oriented around a dove-like figure. Most scholars believe that the principle female goddesses of Greek religions, such as Hera, Artemis, and so on, ultimately derive from the Minoan goddesses.

   The world for the Minoans seems suffused with the divine; all objects in the world seem to have been charged with religious meaning. The Minoans particularly worshipped trees, pillars (sacred stones), and springs. The priesthood seems to have been almost entirely if not totally female, although there's evidence (precious little evidence) that the palace kings had some religious functions as well.

   The Minoan religious world apparently had numerous demons as well, who are always pictured as performing some religious ritual or another, so their exact nature is difficult to assess. They are always depicted as human beings, with the hands and feet of a lion. While they are certainly monstrous, they may, in fact, be symbols of religious worship.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:31 AM

Yeah, okay... ;-) Good sense. I'll go along with that. It's just good sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:54 AM

Read "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves and "When God Was a Woman" by Merlin Stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 04:06 PM

I have. I find both to be quite conjectural.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 04:12 PM

Soooo... is there any concensus on the the hypothesis?

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:29 PM

What if there was? Then what? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: MarkS
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:03 AM

I suspect that the condition of females in todays society is better than it ever was in the past, regardless of the gender identification of whatever contemporary diety was.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 02:59 PM

What exactly do you mean "fare better"?

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 03:39 PM

What exactly do you mean "fare better"?

More chocolate. occasional use of the remote control for the telly. that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:06 PM

women fill the pews?

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: MAG
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:35 PM

A better term for "Adam's rib" is now thought to be "Adam's side."

ie, first human/god was once androgynous and then split in half.

"Hebrew Goddess," in spite of its blatant male bias, is another good reading.

Womans's power of reproduction is still feared by a lot of men. Though you wouldn't know it by our culture's lack of support of motherhood.

and don't get me started on the raw deal handed to Lilith ...

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:08 PM

Good post, MAG. I would agree that the ancient holy books suggest strongly that the human race was initially an androgenous species (in what is termed as the "first creation" in Genesis...and later split into males and females, that being the origin of the Adam and Eve symbolic tale.

The present age is in some ways very disrespectful of women and their role, perhaps moreso than many earlier ages...but in other ways it has greatly expanded women's legal and societal rights and their employment opportunities...but at a cost. That cost has been to the stability of family life and the direct nurturing of the children in those families. When children are being brought up more by the television than by their human mother, you have a real problem on your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 08:52 PM

Speaking as someone brought up by a television, I can attest to their excellent nurturing skills and deep commitment to child welfare.

Mothers at best are of variable quality. The stability and maturity of outlook (so admired by others) that i have achieved in my life is all down to the PYE 17 inch in our living room when i was a child.

I remember, I remember the house where i was born
The breakfast TV that graced our lives in every sunkissed dawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 11:31 PM

LOL! A witty response there, Big Al. ;-)

In my case I grew up in probably the only house in our entire area that had no television (and no smokers), and I think the overall effects on me were very good in a number of respects...but it did make me a lifelong outsider and nonconformist, as my values (and expectations) became quite different to those of most people my age.

It certainly gave me a great affection for books which has lasted to the present day...and a hatred of second hand smoke (legal or illegal).

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 10:04 AM

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

IMO, were the situation reversed, men would presently be suffering "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and all that would be different would be the genders of the participants.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: MAG
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 11:55 AM

I could spout for hours about the postwar economic forces that gave rise to the need for (more) women in the workforce, but I defer to the original poster's wish to stay on topic.

Anyone else read the (Evangeline Walton?) four part fantasy series on the Mabinogian? story involves rising patriarchy, need to know who's the father for the first time, and women becoming property in order to insure this ...

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 12:30 PM

Patriarchy is a peculiar notion, I think, because it's too difficult to be absolutely sure who someone's father is, while there is no such uncertaintly about who the mother is.

I think it makes a lot more sense to trace family line through the mothers than through the fathers. Anyone could be the father, but the identity of the mother is beyond question.

In my opinion, the world started going seriously downhill when the damn patriarchs took over! ;-) (and I am a man)

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 02:33 PM

It is traced through the mother in some Navajo people and in Judiasm. That wasn't my point. Per capita, women have been no more benevolent as rulers than men over the centuries.

I disagree with the OP's post. These days, are women still subjugated? Indeed they are. Is that fair? No, it is not. But, I am not about to start going 'overboard' to appease women or men with other agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 03:17 PM

Benevolence arises out of personal philosophy more than out of gender. I've known some exceedingly malevolent women. A person who holds grudges and does not forgive tends to be malevolent. So too a person who thinks only of his or her own wants and needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:00 PM

Yeppers.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:02 PM

Ed... from the article... "Then there is Judaism. In one neighbourhood in Jerusalem, religious seminaries flank streets with yellow signs that warn: "If you're a woman and you're not properly dressed - don't pass through our neighbourhood.""

Hardly an arguement. Are they not simply warning women?

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:23 PM

"Are they not simply warning women?"

I did not perceive an argument, gnu? What I see is the author presenting a case, right or wrong, in the article.

Seems clear, and IMO, few would disagree that it is indeed a warning. But, based on the entire article, considering the region, do you have a guess on what this warning would be based? That is the key the personal perspective of the author.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 06:55 PM

Maybe you could just consider how women don't fare better at all in some countries, particularly these

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 07:29 PM

A good point, Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 08:25 PM

I don't think God likes any of us. Whatever gifts he lavishes on us, his bloodcurdling plans for us in the afterlife are a fair indication of his true feelings.

Good job the bugger doesn't exist, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 09:42 PM

""Whatever gifts he lavishes on us""

Or, alternatively, she?

Whether "he", or "she" (or whateva) exists, the question seems (to me) to be more of the earthly, person to person experience, rather than a potential after life one. The latter would (and, I am speculating here) be a bit of a challenge to assess directly, and report back?

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 12:45 AM

No EdT. One of the benefits of a religious upbringing is the rock solid certainty that the nasty old bugger, or buggeress has in mind for us all kinds of vile torments. All the best authorities are unanimous in this.

Luckily they are all talking complete bollocks, and they have fashioned a God along the lines of their own regrettable and bullying character defects.

personally, if God exists - I would like him or her, to be a liberal studies lecturer with a good record collection, and some interesting books to borrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 05:22 PM

Big Al Whittle,

So if what you seem to be suggesting that the question in this thread is is "all about", how do you propose that one would go about to prove or disprove the premise, that "women fare better with non-male deities"?

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 05:32 PM

Big Al, the demanding and vengeful "God" you are speaking of is one found in certain dour and horrific religious viewpoints and traditions, but is certainly not the only idea of God that is around! You talk like it is the only one, cos I guess that suits your argument. ;-) I mean, hey, it gives you a damn good target to disbelieve in and disapprove of, doesn't it?

I've been reading spiritual material for decades that in no way supports the idea of such a vengeful and punitive God nor the idea of vile torments inflicted upon an already suffering humanity by the heavenly monster... ;-)

So I feel, needless to say, no compulsion to defend that ludicrous God against your attacks, I merely point out that "He" is the windmill that you, like Don Quixote, are tilting against, and you might be wasting your time doing so.

(As I am probably wasting my time even bothering to talk to you about it....)

The vengeful, demanding, judgemental, punitive God that was concocted by Hebrew Elders in ancient times was nothing more than an enlarged reflection of their own vicious natures, in my opinion. They created a bigger version of themselves to worship.

But that is not the ONLY possible view of God...and the word "God" when used by various people doesn't necessarily mean anything even close to what you think it does when you hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 08:55 PM

Actually I have a lot of respect for people with a faith - particularly when it seems to help them to be good people. My best friend is a catholic, and i asked him one time what praying was like?

he said to me, quite unhesitatingly - its like talking to a really good friend, a warm coversation with a very good friend.

I thought that sounded good - but then i thought - what would you say to someone nurturing a friendship with a third party who claimed the right to hurt them, kill them randomly, repeatedly stood by as the shit started to fly - always with an excuse why he couldn't step in. You'd say that was an abusive relationship - and get out of it. Don't walk - run.

man or woman - if there's a god, he has abused his power; and he, she, or it isn't worth bothering with, in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 09:19 PM

The hypothetical God you set forth in those statements would definitely not be worth bothering with, Big Al! ;-)

But all those statements seem to point toward a separate God-figure who is separate from the being it is having a relationship with...meaning you, me or any other single being.

Are you separate from Life Itself (I'm not talking about the magazine...) or are you a part of it? It's in you. It is you. And it is also all around you. And it's in everyone else. And it has no personal stake in either rewarding you or punishing you, and it has no personal stake in taking sides in a dispute between you and me, but it makes everything you and I are possible, and it makes all the life around you possible too. It is in every atom, and every atom is full of living energy (even in apparently inanimate objects, but although they appear inert and still, their atoms are very active and in constant motion).

Life Itself is the holy of holies. Life is God. I have faith in life.

Religions mostly don't get it, because they turn God into a separate entity of some kind that judges and rewards and punishes. I don't see it that way. I belong to no religion...but I find a certain amount of value in most of them, and I don't object at all to people being in a religion if it suits them.

Yes, a God who abused his or her power would not be worth bothering about. Life doesn't abuse its power. It just is as it is, and it constantly provides the energy of life to every living thing by the fact that it just is as it is.

And the living things decide for themselves what they will do with that energy. They have absolute free will to do that (within the limits of their basic capabilities). They face the results, both negative and positive, and the rewards of their own actions, not the punishments or rewards of a separate and angry God.

This is not what most religions will tell you. Fine. I don't care about that. I don't have to believe what some traditional religion tells me.

As for the male/female thing...since Life Itself clearly manifests as both male and female...I see "God" as both male and female, since God is synonymous with Life Itself. In a relative world, a coin must have 2 sides (and an edge). One side we call "male", the other side we call "female". It's still just one coin. It's a unified concept. The "edge" of the coin...well, you could say that that's the androgenous aspect if you wanted to, I suppose. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 11:00 PM

LH, you always put it so well...thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:30 PM

"Religions mostly don't get it"

How true.

I feel I get closer to the concept of a God, which is part of my life, when I separate human interpreted (and often conveniently interpreted) and imposed religion from my thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 06:24 PM

I see that women in Saudi Arabia would certainly fare better with a non-male dominated theology. They are now protesting just to get the right to drive vehicles.... things like voting and wearing different clothing seem farther away.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 07:27 PM

There is some historical evidence that Islam was successful many years ago among women in Malaysia and Indonesia because it was better for them than the Hinduism that was there before.

None of the monotheistic religions treat men and women equally. It is because they are static, setting beliefs in the time of their founding, at least two thousand years ago The core remains set in the distant patriarchal past.

Most religions are historicaly static, resisting change, and impact (and sometimes reflect) unchanging societies and cultures.

Secular societies may be a better bet for equality for women.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 10:39 PM

Islam was also popular with many lower caste Hindus in India, both males and females, for the simple reason that Islam treated them better than the Hindu caste system did. Islam does not support the idea of people being born in higher and lower castes....the egalitarian nature of Islam's approach to that held out great hope for people born as "untouchables" or other low caste designations in India. Under Islam they were considered just as worthy before God and society as any other person. Islam is egalitarian in that sense, although it has certainly not treated women in an egalitarian fashion.

Yes, the problem with the monotheistic religions from the Middle East is just as you say, Ed...they're still going by ancient written beliefs and ideas from 2000 or more years ago, ideas that came from a rigidly patriarchal and quite brutal society. They are trapped in a past mindset.

Secular societies may indeed be a better bet for equality for women, but the interesting thing is that you can have a "secular" society and still have a great deal of spiritual thought in it. I consider myself secular (not belonging to a religious sect or church, not adhering to a set of religious rules), but spiritual in my philosophy and my purposes.

The real purpose of spirituality is to evolve, to improve yourself in consciousness, behaviour, self-control, conduct, and character, not to worship some supposedly separate deity or to follow some set of religious rules laid down by a book or a priestly order. If you can learn to be kinder, more loving, and more positive to both yourself and others, then you are progressing on the spiritual path. To do these things is also to advance society.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: GUEST,LadyJean
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 12:33 AM

The Iroquois women were equal to the men of their tribes. Iroquois, as far as I know worshipped both male and female deities. In their tradition a woman was the first human to live on the earth. She gave birth to a daughter, who gave birth to two sons, one good one bad, who put all the good and bad things on the earth.

In Iroquois society, women grew the vegetables. Want to eat, be nice to your wife.

The chief diety in the Shinto pantheon is the sun goddess. I'n not sure how well women do there.

Subject: RE: BS: Women fare better with non-male deities?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:55 PM

That's interesting, LadyJean! The Sun is seen as male in almost all ancient traditions, while the Earth is seen as female...and the Moon is usually seen as female too.