Outline and discuss the view that religion, in general, has negative consequences for women
Feminist Simone de Beauvoir believes that religion can be used by the oppressors (men) to control the oppressed group (women) and serves as a way of compensating women for their second-class status. To de Beauvoir religion acts for women in similar ways that it acts for the Proletariat to Marxists. De Beauvoir writes ‘Man enjoys the great advantage of having a God endorse the code he writes’; she believes men have exercised control over religious beliefs.
For the major world religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam ‘man is master by divine right’ (de Beauvoir), so it follows that fear of angering God becomes fear of angering men. De Beauvoir believes that in modern societies women are deceived by religion to think that they are equal to men, despite obvious inequalities, like the unbalanced proportion of women to men in positions of power within the religions. She says, ‘There must be a religion for women as there must be one for the common people, and for exactly the same reasons.’ Like the proletariat in Marxism, de Beauvoir considers religion to give women the false belief that they will be compensated in heaven for their sufferings on Earth. This means that the status quo of inequality between the sexes is maintained because women are vital to religion from the work they do for organisations and by introducing children to religious beliefs. De Beauvoir concludes that this ‘…is why the Church is notably hostile to all measures likely to help in women’s emancipation.’
Nawal El Saadawi writes from the female perspective in the Arab world, she considers religion important in creating and perpetuating oppression. El Saadawi argues that Arab girls are often victims of sexual aggression, especially by men, for example her own experience where as a young girl she was forced to undergo ‘female circumcision’ where part of her clitoris was amputated. Despite these views El Saadawi denies that the oppression of women is directly caused by religion in general. Female circumcision has been practised in a number of countries, not all of them Islamic, and authentic religious practices tend to be opposed to any such practices because ‘…if religion comes from God, how can it order man to cut off an organ created by Him as long as that organ is not diseased or deformed?’. El Saadawi states that religion became patriarchal by the misinterpretation of religious beliefs by men. A distortion El Saadawi cites is the Christian creation story. Here Eve is often portrayed as a temptress who created evil in the world, but was created from Adam’s spare rib. However ‘…if we read the original story as described in the old Testament, it is easy for us to see clearly that Eve was gifted with knowledge, intelligence and superior mental capacities, whereas Adam was only one of her instruments, utilised by her to increase he knowledge and give shape to her creativity’ (El Saadawi, 1980). El Saadawi believes that female oppression is not essentially due to religion but due to the patriarchal system that has long been dominant. She concludes that religion has played it’s part, ‘The great religion of the world uphold similar principles in so far as the submission of women to men is concerned…where the cause of women was concerned, they [religions] added a new load to their already heavy chain.’ El Saadawi writes that revolutions will further the cause of women even more if the positive aspects of religions can be emphasised and the patriarchal misinterpretations abandoned. She is not hostile to religion itself, but only to the domination of religion by patriarchal ideology.
It should not be assumed that all religions are oppressive to women. De Beauvoir and El Saadawi tended to portray women as passive victims of oppression, and religion as being universally oppressive. There are sociologists who think women can no longer be seen as passive. Leila Badawi acknowledges aspects of Islam that are positive for women. Islamic women keep their own name when they marry, they have considerable choice over which interpretation of Islam they give their allegiance to. Alexandra Wright notes that Reform Judaism has allowed women to become rabbis since 1972 and Jean Holm records that in 1994 there were already three female Anglican bishops. Some Christian denominations, particularly Quakers, have never been oppressive to women, and Kanwaljit Kaur-Singh points out that ‘Sikh gurus pleaded the cause of the emancipation of Indian womanhood and did their best to ameliorate the sordid condition of women.’ Even apparently oppressive practices may be open to varied interpretations. For example the veiling of Muslim women is usually ‘…depicted as a tangible symbol of women’s oppression, a constraining and restricting form of dress, and a form of social control, religiously sanctioning women’s invisibility and subordinate socio-political status’ (Watson, 1994). This is not the viewpoint of many Muslim women and writers. They feel that it reduces, or allows them to cope with, male oppression.
Attempts to subvert patriarchy by changing the meaning of traditional practices may not always succeed in liberating workmen from domination through religion. There is always a danger they might have the opposite effect.
In evaluation, while some argue that religion has positive consequences for women, such as providing a strong sense of community and a set of rules for them to live to, it must be acknowledged that religion serves to oppress women and the negative consequences far outweigh the positive. Religion is essentially a conservative force; it prohibits change so that even now when other structures in society are becoming more equalised, the church has done little to reverse or stop female emancipation. The very core of religions serve to oppress women. The basic teachings such as those the Koran and Bible have lines within them that are obviously sexist. For example, in the Koran: ‘Men are in charge of women…hence good women are obedient.’ In the Bible: ‘Wives be subject to your husbands…for the husband is the head of the wife.’ Everyday male orthodox Jews say ‘Blessed art thou o Lord, that I was not born a woman.’ With this at the very core of religiosity it isn’t difficult to see why it is sexist, but having men in power in churches and religion serves to compound it. Even things as central to religions as female images compound female oppression. Female deities are found in all religions and always take on either the motherly, caring role or appear dangerous and threatening. In few are they the dominant image.
Sexist notions in religious books and passive, subjugated female deities at the core of world religions can only serve to have negative consequences for women. Although religion has positive effects on women, these could be achieved without the sexist ideology, and in conclusion it is true that religion, in general, has negative consequences for women.