Why all Abrahamic Religions force women to remain inferior to men?

@Khayam (346)
Romania
January 3, 2009 8:04pm CST
Needless to say, Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianty and Judaism) are Patriarchal Doctrines steming from patriarchal societies. Althought there is a strong tendency in the West to scapegoat Islam for its practices and visions regarding women, West's own cultural heritage has a fundamentally similar set of values when it comes to the female integration within Churches. In the case of some Christian denominations, ordination of women become a certitude, but even so overall, women are still inferior to men in all Abrahamic religions. I personally doubt that women are less spiritual than males, and I personally don't see any good reason for women to be kept in the second line of importance within Churches. What's your oppinion on this issue?
1 person likes this
6 responses
@urbandekay (18308)
4 Jan 09
"Needless to say, Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianty and Judaism) are Patriarchal Doctrines steming from patriarchal societies." This is begging the question, far from being 'needless to say' you would have to argue such a point. Secondly, you confuse difference with equality, that people are treated differently does not necessarily mean they are treated unequally, one law for the lion and ox is oppression. all the best urban
• Norway
4 Jan 09
One law for lion and lioness is oppression
@Khayam (346)
• Romania
4 Jan 09
Let me highlight the fact that all Abrahamic religions are patriarchal doctrines: - According to each religion's holy scripture Yahve, Allah and God have a male representation (with the divine-feminine reduced to the level of an atribute of a male God). - The associated doctrines were spread by Christian, Muslim and/or Judaic prophets all (exclusivelly) male. - All Abrahamic religions (with the exception of some Christian denominations) can't even conceptualize the possibility for women to be ordained within clergy. A woman priest, rabi, imam can't be anything but an utopia. - All Abrahamic religions have certain purity laws for marriage. However they only require women to be virgin, while males are free to enjoy their sexuality whenever, wherever. Arguably there would be a myriad of other things to be pointed out, but I think these are substantiating my initial claim.
@urbandekay (18308)
4 Jan 09
Yes, I understand you want to highlight it but since your argument rest upon it you cannot just assume it to be the case but would need to substantiate this claim. In an attempt to substantiate this claim, instead of arguing for it you make another contentious claim; that God is male. As a follower of one of the religions you target it is not stated God is male and logically follows from what is said about him, that he is both male and female or neither. You further make an erroneous argument based on the false conception that difference means inequality. Is a doctor equal to a lawyer? Or a plumber to an electrician? Different roles do not imply inequality all the best urban
• Philippines
4 Jan 09
it is only Islam that force women to remain inferior. Christians or even the "Non-Practicing" Christians or Roman Catholic by birth( but dont go to church)- Like Myself, are treating woman as equal and oftentimes even more superior to men
• United States
5 Jan 09
But the catholic church doesn't allow women to be priests. And the bible says women arent't supposed to speak in church, they are suposed to ask their husbands or fathers questians if they have them. And it says that women aren't supposed to speak about god they are suppiosed to win people over to the church by being sweet and kind. However those things are both stated in books written by Paul. Different deciples and prophets said different things. I think that both sexes are equal but different, god created both of us we both have our own strengths and weaknesses
1 person likes this
4 Jan 09
I really don't believe Christianity makes women inferior. That is not what the bible says, it is only how some interpret it to say. The bible says to for a woman to be submissive to her own husband, it does not say subservient, and this too must be in context to the whole chapter. It was about a wife not to have another man instructing her, and as for the man being the head of the house, so many try to make this a mater of controversy. It only means that the man is the priest of the family, he is the bread winner and he is responsible for the well being of his family, it is about responsibility not control.
@GADHISUNU (2163)
• India
4 Jan 09
In the strictest sense since from pre-history Man brought home the bacon, against seemingly tough competition in the harsh world, Man had occasion to think he has a greater strength, and when religion( wherever possible politics and statecraft were subservient to religion) came in as a means bring order. This is the first rule-book writing. By that time Man had established his "upper hand". So all religious laws had to be slanted towards/ advantageous to man. The march of knowledge and life based on knowledge has shown that there is not any difference in intelligence between Man and Woman. So, increasingly you see the barriers to all "differences and biased opinions" being replaced by newer legislation(Political Action) as in our day religion is no more the law maker, though the lobby is still strong, wanting to make it a stronghold. Among the Abrahamic Religions Judaism and Christianity being practiced in countries where education and human development have been divested of religious control, to a much much greater extent than in Islamic countries in general. So, the kind of opinions about women people hold do change faster. In Islamic countries Religion is still the basis of Law. Did you read about the Taliban giving warnings to parents in areas of Afghanistan, under T-control to marry off their young girls to militants? This is what will happen when religion holds sway over peoples' minds even in the face of the March of Science or other areas of knowledge in secular endeavor.
@Pose123 (21660)
• Canada
4 Jan 09
H khayam, I'm with you on this, it is the churches that have kept women from getting equal rights for so long. There is absolutely no reason for churches not to ordain women, and as you say some churches are doing it. Anyone who studies history can see that it has been the norm for church to oppose progress. Women are equal to men and it's time for all churches to get with it. Blessings.
• United States
4 Jan 09
It's really quite simple, Khayam. Men made the rules. If you haven't the persoality to do what you want to do, you can always say God said so. The religions you pointed out all have a variety of "levels" of orthodoxy, including several in which women are the leaders. As far as I can tell, it's not the rreligion that calls for treating women as if we werenot fully human; it's the practitioners of it.