What would a religion founded by a woman look like?

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

<tangent>. . . and have asked whether this goes back to the worship of mother goddesses in pre-Christian times.

<even more of a tangent>Goddess-worshipping religions are not necessarily benevolent environments as far as women are concerned. The primary example is Hinduism, which has a vast pantheon of goddesses and which also favoured widow-burning. Women who are perceived to embody or image divinity are not necessarily loved; they may just as well be feared and hated.

carlarua

that was a potentially very interesting discussion going down the plughole.

Many religious women are scary in their fundamentalism.
What deity are women supposed to believe in ? Male, female of both ? I wouldn't think it would be necessarily a peaceful religion.

Newaglish

What's the name of that cult up in Donegal? The house of prayer? It's kinda Catholic I suppose but it was set up by a woman

Obliq

Newaglish wrote: »

What's the name of that cult up in Donegal? The house of prayer? It's kinda Catholic I suppose but it was set up by a woman

http://www.sistersofmercy.ie/ireland_britain/northern/ourwork/w_houses.cfm

Catherine McAuley.

It's catholic though. Is that the cult you meant?!

seamus

Obliq wrote: »

http://www.sistersofmercy.ie/ireland_britain/northern/ourwork/w_houses.cfm

Catherine McAuley.

It's catholic though. Is that the cult you meant?!

It seems to me that women who set up and front "fringe" religious organisations like the one above and like Evil Ui Chroibin, at least tend to do it out of religious conviction and vehement belief in scripture.

Men on the other hand who either form or get to the top of religious organisations appear to be more interested in the power and influence of such a position than the upholding of religious doctrine.

Maybe that's just perception rather than reality.

swampgas

carlarua wrote: »

that was a potentially very interesting discussion going down the plughole.

Many religious women are scary in their fundamentalism.
What deity are women supposed to believe in ? Male, female of both ? I wouldn't think it would be necessarily a peaceful religion.

There was a book about terrorism, years ago, called "Shoot the women first", based on the idea that anti-terrorist police units had learned that female terrorists were more fanatical than their male colleagues, much less likely to surrender, and therefore more dangerous in a showdown.

AFAIR there were a lot of criticisms of the book, but at least it's fair to say that there was a perception in some quarters that fanatical women were somehow more dangerous than fanatical men.

pwurple

I can't believe anyone is taking this thread even half seriously. Surely it is obvious to anyone who has met more than one woman, that all women are not a homogenous mass of unified thinking.

Obliq

swampgas wrote: »

There was a book about terrorism, years ago, called "Shoot the women first", based on the idea that anti-terrorist police units had learned that female terrorists were more fanatical than their male colleagues, much less likely to surrender, and therefore more dangerous in a showdown.

AFAIR there were a lot of criticisms of the book, but at least it's fair to say that there was a perception in some quarters that fanatical women were somehow more dangerous than fanatical men.

Possibly. From Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex&page=2

" research by Archer and sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire calls this scenario into question. Surprisingly, their analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women’s rates of physical aggression are slightly higher. This apparent equality is not solely a result of women fighting back, because it holds even for altercations that women start."

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Possibly. From Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex&page=2

" research by Archer and sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire calls this scenario into question. Surprisingly, their analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women’s rates of physical aggression are slightly higher. This apparent equality is not solely a result of women fighting back, because it holds even for altercations that women start."

This doesn't surprise me. There is this notion that women - being designed by nature to be 'nurturing' and 'caring' and, well, mothers - are nearly incapable of violence. Which is as utter tosh as saying men cannot be nurturing or caring or gentle.
Of course women can be violent - take a trip down one of our city streets any weekend night and watch the 'laddettes' go for each other and anyone who even glances in their direction.

Religion, to me, is about power and control and I have no reason to suspect that a matriarchal religion wouldn't attract some Thatcher like figures who would create a hierarchy with themselves on top.

Obliq

I've no difficulty believing that either - nor that female terrorists are more lethal than the male.

There's also a notion that females can be more violent because of their mothering/nurturing. I can't remember where I heard it, but sounds about right - a mother will fight to the death for her infant (actually, I may have seen it on a nature programme!) more readily than a father.

Anyhow, I can well imagine that a religion founded by a woman would be just as ridiculously power crazed as the patriarchal ones currently popular worldwide. With some different but just as arbitrary rules.

Instead of single mothers having to walk down the side of the church to get communion, it would be men who snore loudly that were shunned. Or fart loudly. And indeed, builder's cracks should be outlawed. I suggest the onesy would work for this. Thoughts? :pac:

strobe

ShooterSF wrote: »

The only genuine difference I can imagine might be more openness to birth control if it was a religion that not only was founded by a woman but also went down a similar path of dividing up the sexes with one getting preferential treatment.

I'd very much doubt that. Well depending n the circumstances I guess. Going forth and multiplying is beneficial to any tribe, as numbers == strength. This is true whether it's a woman steering the tribe or a man. Any prophet with their thinking cap on isn't going make any commandments that would do anything other than ensure that when the tribe across the way come calling, she can put more fighters on the field than they can.

I don't buy that opposition to birth control had its origins in men wanting to control women, or a reverence for the right to life of the unborn, or any such thing, pure military pragmatism, I reckon.

ShooterSF

strobe wrote: »

I'd very much doubt that. Well depending n the circumstances I guess. Going forth and multiplying is beneficial to any tribe, as numbers == strength. This is true whether it's a woman steering the tribe or a man. Any prophet with their thinking cap on isn't going make any commandments that would do anything other than ensure that when the tribe across the way come calling, she can put more fighters on the field than they can.

I don't buy that opposition to birth control had its origins in men wanting to control women, or a reverence for the right to life of the unborn, or any such thing, pure military pragmatism, I reckon.

But a problem does arise where leaders of the church are incapacitated due to pregnancy and yes you could go down the catholic church's celibacy approach but women like sex as much as men (imo) but unlike men it might be more obvious if they break the rules! I suppose you could secretly provide birth control to your priests etc. but I dunno!

Anywho I'd say Obliq's teeth are grinding at this point of two men discussing the issues of women priests having sex :pac: (I kid, I kid!)

Newaglish

Obliq wrote: »

http://www.sistersofmercy.ie/ireland_britain/northern/ourwork/w_houses.cfm

Catherine McAuley.

It's catholic though. Is that the cult you meant?!

I meant this place:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Prayer,_Achill#mw-mf-search

Although I didn't describe it particularly well!

Sarky

If Christianity had been spread by Irish women, we'd have a wooden spoon instead of a crucifix, and stigmata would only appear on the buttocks.

Obliq

ShooterSF wrote: »

But a problem does arise where leaders of the church are incapacitated due to pregnancy and yes you could go down the catholic church's celibacy approach but women like sex as much as men (imo) but unlike men it might be more obvious if they break the rules! I suppose you could secretly provide birth control to your priests etc. but I dunno!

Anywho I'd say Obliq's teeth are grinding at this point of two men discussing the issues of women priests having sex :pac: (I kid, I kid!)

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:

Obliq

strobe wrote: »

I don't buy that opposition to birth control had its origins in men wanting to control women, or a reverence for the right to life of the unborn, or any such thing, pure military pragmatism, I reckon.

I'd say you're right - souls for the church and all that (by their own admission actually). However, that does require controlling women's reproductive choices, I think you'll find.

robindch

The A+-related posts have been moved to the A+ thread.

Now, back on topic please!

strobe

Obliq wrote: »

I'd say you're right - souls for the church and all that (by their own admission actually). However, that does require controlling women's reproductive choices, I think you'll find.

Oh certainly, and men's. Requires being able to dictate to all society how they approach reproduction.

Obliq

Yeah, but a religion founded by a woman would certainly be taking into account that the men haven't exactly got the same consequences resulting from control of reproduction. I reckon that particular religion would die out pretty quickly!

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

Yeah, but a religion founded by a woman would certainly be taking into account that the men haven't exactly got the same consequences resulting from control of reproduction. I reckon that particular religion would die out pretty quickly!

On a related topic, check out the shakers who mandated celibacy for their members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Communal_spiritual_family

Obliq

Ah right! There ye go......." as of December 2009 had only three members left."

Celibacy - a step too far for any religion?!

coffee_cake

I'd introduce more cake

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

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....

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd introduce more cake

Welcome back!!

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

Celibacy - a step too far for any religion?!

Yep. Assuming that the religion isn't dying out for other reasons -- a pretty big assumption when members are required to deny themselves sex -- it does go some way towards suggesting that the indoctrination of kids is the primary means by which religion is transmitted from human to human.

coffee_cake

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 was

Neutronale

Freiheit wrote: »

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:

Obliq

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:

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

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:

Of course Ireland would have it's own version

Obliq

HOW could I have forgotten Peig? Sacrilege. :eek:

There seems to be a theme today....should all the threads be merged?