Religion is for men

Historically the vast majority of religious debate and prophesy and writing has been done by males.
It might be me but I can almost always tell that I am debating or discussing something with a woman.
I don’t know if it is their different form of logic or debate style or if it is the types of feelings they bring to a discussion or what.
I am aware of some of the great ladies of the Bible and how they have contributed to religion. No question. I note as well that this place is what 80-90% men.Women are invaluable in terms of religious input.My question to all is where are the women and why is religion mostly for men.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'd be wary of attributing too much to this gender-radar you think you have. Almost certainly you're remembering your successes and forgetting your failures. Female input is restricted in a large number of religions, primarily because their input isn't consistent with preserving patriarchal attitudes.

Well, there's no denying the male-dominated ratios among famous religious figures in history--at least, when we're discussing the religions most familiar to us today. But I don't see how this differs in kind from the male-dominated ratios you find among famous figures in any field in history. The religious specialty reflects ideas about gender roles that exist in the society as a whole.My first thought on reading your OP was that it was terribly imprecise. I wondered if Admins might ask you to rework it before going public. Your claim to 'gender radar', for example, is surely based on the different ways men and women are socialized in their use of language. But, as Crashfrog advises, it's best not to be too confident on this point. A number of other factors besides gender influence individuals' use of language. Start thinking you've got the code cracked and you'll get stomped in online gaming.The other sloppy element, I thought, was the premise: You don't really know this. How can you quantify 'debate and prophecy'? When you stood in the market square in Delphi and listened to all the religious debates going on around you, did you do a gender count? How much access do you have to all the prophecies uttered by temple priestesses and priests over the centuries? With the debates that take place within the walls of convents and monasteries around the world? Within the halls of all the churches and religious centers around the world in which, studies suggest, women are more likely to be actively involved than men?When you turn to 'writing' you are on safer ground. Documented statements about religion in the traditions most familiar to us exhibit a ratio that skews male.But before one assumes on that basis that males have been doing most of the discussing at all, we might first ask if men's thoughts were more likely to be recorded than women's. I think they were.For much of the history you are discussing men had access to education that was denied to women. In most societies the genders were also much more segregated in everday life than they are today. This tended to put men in the company of scribes who could write down what they said and keep women out of earshot of anyone who could write what they said. And if it came down to one person, well, a man was more likely to be able to write his own thoughts down than a woman.It's worth remembering, too, that not everything attributed to a male author was necessarily authored by a man. Women have often used male-sounding pen names in history. Redactors have often attributed women's thoughts to men. Many scholars suspect much or all of The Song of Moses, for example, was originally The Song of Miriam. You also have the question of the invention that lies behind the authorship. The influence of a teacher can be profound. Much of Eckhart's philosophy was clearly influenced by his conversations with nuns. How many of the ideas in his sermons reflect theirs?Consider too that many of our ancient literary documents preserve oral traditions. This raises the question of the gender ratio among the bards, singers, and elders who were the original tellers of these stories. The gender ratio among the original storytellers was surely different than it would have been among the scribes who wrote the stories down.We find an imbalance, yes. But the premise as we have it in the OP makes way too many glib assumptions.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : tinkering.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I do believe, first of all, that women are somewhat different from men in objective thinking. I am not the kind of person who will get bothered by mysoginistic attitudes, because I accept the idea that most men think more objectively. It is proven, if you look at statistics, that men do better in IQ tests. But I do believe that gender roles play a big part; men are seen as leaders. Their ideas are more important because their capabilities in leadership are often judged more than a woman's. When it comes to famous figures in the christian religion, female saints are equally common as males. There are even women regarded as 'doctors' of the church. Mary essentially achieved leadership because of her subjectivity. It is paradoxical. Again, looking at the Catholic religion, when it comes to prophecy, women are given an equal role. Although other types of christianity do not recognize apparitions, those approved by the RCC and made famous are very much inclusive of women.
There is Fatima, of course, Lourdes, Mary of Agreda, Catherine Laboure, Maguerite Alecoque, many more. Women are regarded as equal vessels of prophecy, even if equal educational opportunities are lacking. Submissiveness, in a way, is very important for revelation.The ratio of men to women contribution in philosophic and theological areas is greater for men, no doubt due to educational differences and leadership roles in addition to natural inclinations, but the idea is one of compliments. A woman's tendency toward acceptance of leadership can make her an ideal candidate for sainthood, while a man will often achieve sainthood only by valiant struggles against himself. If you think of Augustine, he is widely known, and his mother, St Monica, not so well-known. Monica probably has written nothing, her saintliness was in her constancy, her faith, her perseverence in the face of hard-ship, while Augustine's was in his writings, in his eventual submission to faith in spite of temptation.For Benedict, there is Scholastica, for John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, for Francis of Assisi, Claire. The women always seem to battle the world more than themselves, and as the saying goes, we are our own worst enemy. So in a sense, the men have over-come more, even if the result is the same. Men are often remembered more for their struggles, and women for their constancy. The same is true for the great men of history; there has often been a women of faith supporting them. I do not mean faith in religion necessarily, but in the man, and in his ability to be a leader. It is not important to decide who is better, but to follow the models of leadership in whatever role you have been given. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Thanks for naming names, anastasia. Christians are heir to a rich tradition. If only more of them valued it!One of the many ways fundamentalism impoverishes people is the way it robs them of their own religious history. Talk to any fundie and the picture of Christianity through the ages you get is (1) once upon a time Christ and the apostles walked around and everything was golden, (2) an Apostacy set in and everything went to hell in a handbasket, (3) the Founder of My Sect came along and fixed everything just in time for the Second Coming. This is myth, not history.Gender balance exists among mystics in all cultures, it seems, that one doesn't find so much among the scribes. Part of that is surely the way mysticism works across categories, as you say: leading because one is subjective.Nuances and complexities of history come into play here, too. In late medieval convents women could become literate and get wide-ranging educations even as academies and universities were closed to them. So we get these wonderful documents from Theresa of Avila and Hildegard... including just their names for posterity.
___Edited by Archer Opterix, : precision.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

A woman's tendency toward acceptance of leadership can make her an ideal candidate for sainthood, while a man will often achieve sainthood only by valiant struggles against himself.Does that include Joan of Arc? From what I remember from 7th Grade history, she did just the opposite of submitting to society's standards.From a protestant perspective,I can kind of see where you're getting at. However, even Christian authors (for example, John Eldrige in 'Wild at Heart') assert that both men and women can be fierce at times.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : working on html skills.

Very neatly put. Connecting men with the idea of the appearance of leadership.I think this is right on the mark. Mind if I explore that idea bit?All kinds of leadership exist, as you note. Leadership depends on organization, ability to teach, ability to inspire, ability to foresee, specialized skills, many things. On this basis we can ascribe leadership to men and women equally. Do the genders show different aptitudes, statistically speaking? Even so: each aptitude has its uses. Leadership is consequently needed in developing all of them within a community.Leading doesn't depend on a lot of filigree. The people who most inspire us in life are our truest leaders. Their work is not always synonymous with lasting fame or grand impressions or even official titles. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.Social expectations come into play here, as you say. These certainly influence how leadership gets manifested. (They don't affect as much where it really exists.)For men visibility of leadership traditionally plays an important role. Why? Because for men a close link exists between being seen as a leader and being seen as a desirable sexual partner. Men themselves are not primarily responsible for making this linkage, either. It originates in the sexual choices of women. But it's fair to say that this as heavy an expectation put on men as the linkage between beauty and desirability is for women.For this reason the more visible forms of leadership have always been, and for the foreseeable future may continue to be, more heavily pursued by males of the species. Women today have the option of becoming highly visible leaders in society in a way formerly reserved just for men. This is all to the good. But for men the acquisition of visible authority still stands as something more than an option. It looms as a kind of imperative. Society tells men that leadership--or, at least, the overt display of something looking very much like it--is something they need if they want more of, well, something they need.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : brevity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

So what? Most IQ test a designed by men.IQ tests measure IQ (however you define it). That means jack shit in real life.When IQ test were first used it was to 'prove' non whites were not as smart as whites.IQ test are pointless; there is even a practice effect for doing IQ tests. The more you do the better you become at doing them and the higher your IQ.

Yes, women can achieve a ferocity which is unusual for their sex in general, and without just cause, not much admired.But Joan of Arc is actually a good example of what I was talking about; she fought the world, and not herself. It is of course only a general observation, but there does seem to be a larger amount of men who are recognized for their great 'conversions' of heart. We have St Paul, Augustine, Francis of Assisi, and even Thomas and Peter the apostles. Of course, you do have your Mary Magdalene's.

Very true. Sexual desirability is often linked to leadership in the form of success, enterprise and ambition in financial areas, education as a necessary preperation for versatility (as compared to leadership based on brute strength)...and of course, independence. Reminds me of Seinfeld, where George is afraid to approach a woman because he is insecure about his lack of job and living with his parents. Oh, and his baldness. What is about us that we still link hair to strength, like in Samson and Delilah?Anyway, I think actual physical strength will always make men leader-figures, because, in many ways they had to provide for women if the women were to provide for the children. In relation to this whole idea, I can look at my family, and see some absolute negligence on the part of the women in choosing desirable male partners based on leadership, and also, a negligence on the part of the men in choosing faithful and consistant women.

Gould even goes farther than that. In Mismeasure of Man, he argues, among other things, that the search for a quantifiable capacity called intelligence is an exercise in futility, that there is no way to measure intelligence, or at least that every effort made to date has been horrifically off the mark.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hey, you won't hear me complaining.

Alright, I see where you're coming from. However, Peter would've happily taken on the world for Jeshuah given the chance--I personally admire his courage for slashing at a Roman soldier when they came for his savior.

I think what Larni was trying to explain was that men scoring higher on IQ tests doesn't really say much about leadership.From what I understand, even today some companies make applicants take IQ tests and hire according to their scores. What needs to be considered in this example is that the language questions of any standardized tests are culturally biased without failure. Thus, somebody's alledged IQ level really only highlights their test taking skills as opposed to their leadership capacity.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : I'm a grammar nazi, so I had to fix a tense error.