fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4209 ]

[ SECRET POST #4209 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4209 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

(Once Upon A Time In Wonderland)

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Secret of Mana]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for Luke Cage Season 2]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Infinity War]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for dub/non-con]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for incest]

[Boku No Hero Academia]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #602.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How do you mesh your feminist beliefs and value system with the whole religious patriarchy and all-knowing all-powerful explicitly-male father figure who can do no wrong God thing? And assorted organized patriarchal extensions of the aforementioned

Promise I'm not a troll, but it's something I can't quite wrap my head around

(not trolling either)

But what do you mean by "feminist" (I mean there are varying definitions)? Or better yet, what would you define as the minimum one would have to be a proponent of certain beliefs?

I.e. I don't like to label myself as a feminist, but I feel that women should be treated equally as men. We are no less than men. Would you consider that feminist or just basic decency (beca use I consider it general respect for people).

Whatever you consider feminism to be, and how you mesh it with Abrahamic religious history, tenets, beliefs, systems

I just find it difficult to understand, even the most basic 'women are equal to men' is not followed by much of the above

Is it by ignoring the parts that are unfeminist and directly or indirectly put women beneath their husbands or other men in social and religious hierarchies? Or ignoring the fact that everyone worships an explicitly male, all-knowing 'Father' with no equal mother or feminine figure? But how do you mesh that with following the religion, if you ignore those? Is it even the same religion if you do? Are you then a hypocrite if you say others cherry-pick your religious texts?

I just can't really get it

I mean I hear religious liberals arguing against religious conservatives saying they take only what they want out of their religious texts and ignore what they don't like, right. I think that's pretty true. But don't religious feminists have to do the same thing where they ignore the parts they don't like, where women aren't supposed to do certain things and are supposed to have husbands as heads of households and serve him?

How do you mesh that with a feminist perspective unless you ignore the things you don't like, and only go for the things you like? Or is that what you do? And everyone is doing the same thing?

I know female priests, rabbis, and imams exist, rarely, but don't those go directly against their religious texts? But that's not selective religion?

It's just very confusing

No, actually, religious feminists are generally taking those passages within the cultural context. Most of those passages are about either actually "mutual submission" meaning loving your spouse and giving yourself wholly to them on the part of both peopl or about in a culture where women were supposed to submit, women who are Christians choosing to do so in order to make Christianity appealing to those of other faiths. Of course, today, that generally has the exact opposite effect, which is why Christian feminists, generally, would argue that a contextual reading would not apply those today.

But then again many Christian feminists would then avoid contextual interpretations for things they personally dislike, such as homosexuality. Which drives me up a wall.

Something I've always wondered is, if cultural context is allowed to influence the holy texts in such a way, why doesn't a modern person rewrite the text with modern cultural context?

If theirs was allowed to influence the books, why can't ours?

ayrt

I guess I'll start with a few disclaimers, one being that I'm speaking for myself, second being the mentioned I don't use the feminist label (but I think that we should all be treated with respect and that my being a woman shouldn't be a reason you're going to treat me like I'm lesser than a man), and third being that people practice their religion and faith differently.
Fourth, I'm Roman Catholic (this has bearing on the woman part).

With that out of the way, the easiest way for me to explain how I can meet both my "feminist" ideals of treat everyone the with respect & decency and still practice my religion is the following: As a Christian, particularly as a Catholic, the essential point of my faith is Christ, Jesus, in the Eucharist. That is the core. And that is greater than any hierarchy, anything else, all the women can't be priests, etc. (For me).

That said, in my Catholic formation, it was always emphasized that my salvation (Christ) came about because Mary said yes. This woman (girl) said yes, and she bore fruit, life, she carried the Son of God. Sure, God could have just plopped Jesus down, but that didn't happen. A woman was necessary And instrumental to salvation. And throughout history, so many women are saints, etc.

Perhaps it is cherry picking (I certainly don't profess to abiding by all the rules), and maybe the way I practice my faith isn't by the exact tenets, but the core is what is most true to me, and that's what I follow. The same applies to how I think women and men should be treated. What is the most true to me? That is how these two mesh. Even Jesus said to love that neighbor as yourself.

To answer some of your questions, most people I know who are practicing Catholics abide by respecting their spouses. I mean, I think cultural context is necessary (all these things sync anyhow).And while this is conjecture, most people don't follow a strict code or anything. Shoot,my mother would always tell me that the Bible may say a woman is supposed to serve her husband, but he is supposed to treat her like a queen, they always forget that second part. Most people cherry pick, I think. And not intentionally, mind you. I'm not sitting reading and taking apart the Bible and theological texts.

I mean, it's God the Father, Christ the Son. If you think about the cultural context and time, a) a Father is one who protects, provides; b) The Son would be listened to over a woman. And to the Jews, Jesus was a heretic anyway, but being a man, he was able to travel more freely than a woman, no?(I don't want to derail this)...when I was younger I used to be upset that women couldn't be priests, but as my faith and understanding grew over time, this grew less important because the point is getting closer to God. And there are many women whose faith I admire (and they're clearly not priests). Ultimately, my faith triumphs over any ideals, because in a way, the call to be loving, to ideals greater than myself stem from this Ultimate Good (which for me, would be God). All these things get muddled in between because we're human.

tl;dr: While everyone practices their faith differently, and I have not really met hardliners on treating women
like shit in my particular religious experience, I find I can mesh my faith and "feminist leanings in asking myself what is it that I find more true, better, above all else. And for me that is the Eucharist, and that is the love I receive from God, who asks me to love all others equally, which to me means treat all with love, holding none over the other. it's evident that even in what I've written, that a complete gloss over certain things has occurred; I gloss over it because I don't find it applicable to my own relationship with my faith and feminism (although I can see how for others it can be important).

tl;dr2: I really wish I could provide a more nuanced explanation. This a conversation I would prefer to have in the spoken word over the written word.

I hope this helps?

It does, and I appreciate the detailed response. I know this kind of thing is really personal for a lot of people. I hope I didn't come across as accusing religious husbands of treating their wives badly, because I didn't mean to imply that at all, just using examples in the texts that obviously don't hold up in modern day.

But for me, I can't shake the feeling that regarding the priesthood and Mother Mary thing, this sounds a whole lot like "separate, but equal." Only the argument here is that it is truly equal, although separate, and therefore okay. And this puts an uncomfortable (at least to me) importance on childbearing as the woman's role.

But I think that may be because I don't have belief or a higher goal in mind when looking at the structures. Like you say it stopped mattering because you realized something else (getting closer to God) was more important than the details by a magnitude that made it them irrelevant in a religious sense, but to a non-Catholic without that overriding driving goal the human details are all we have? I don't know if I like the idea of human details being eclipsed by a higher faith, but I don't know a higher faith to be able to say whether I'd be the same

Re: SA

(Anonymous) - 2018-07-14 05:51 (UTC) - Expand

For me, I think that certain parts written for my religion were meant to be taken in the context of the time they were written, and don't and can't be applied the same today. Plus, I don't take it literally anyway.

As for God, while the Bible does use "he," I think that is in the same sense that it uses he for people to mean both male and female. I don't think God had a gender. Jesus was a man, but Jesus was human. God, the big, unknowable, explainable divine being is way beyond understanding and cannot be defined in any way that fits our language, I don't think. People have tried in different ways, and have captured bits and pieces. But only parts. And certainly, I don't think human gender can in any way be used to define God.

If the way you mesh it is "this is just my interpretation of the religion, personal interpretations of the religion are valid, and my interpretation of the religion is that it is feminist," are other non-feminist interpretations valid? Is all religion a personal interpretation? If, for example, you were arguing with a religious conservative, would you say that you are correct and they are not, even if they are also interpreting the religion in their own way?

If it is all up to personal interpretation, is there any objective tenets or beliefs that make up what "Christianity" means (assuming it is Christianity due to mention of Jesus)? Are they feminist? If the God or Jesus you believe in is a totally separate-sounding God or Jesus from the one someone else believes in, are you still both Christian? Who is correct? What makes both of you Christian if you believe in a feminist God and they believe in a non-feminist God, if they're different Gods and you can't imagine your God would be against lesbians being married, but theirs most definitely is?

I don't know if I'm being coherent here.

I think they are valid in a cultural sense I guess. Like, I don't think any sort of view that wants to restrict others is valid, but I think that personal interpretations within a culture can be more okay because things are more nuanced. Like, in certain time periods, those restrictions were maybe necessary or at least valid. And I think the same can be said for certain cultures.

To me religion is a personal thing, though it can also be a cultural and social thing. But the actual truth is impossible for us to define. I think there is a Divine being, I think there is a God. And I think that there is ultimate truth that exists. And part of that truth is equality. And I think that any religion that restricts some people is wrong on that part, though they may grasp some other aspect of the ultimate truth. There are things that are right and that are wrong. But you can worship or do religion how you want, as long as you aren't telling others how to do it.

But I don't think we're going to actually know what that truth is until we're dead.

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly I believe. I haven't put it all together yet. I generally just stick with the "believe what you want, but you don't get to tell me what to believe" philosophy. I figure it will all get sorted out in the end.

I understand that bit and yeah, I respect people's personal beliefs. Whether or not I understand or believe it's real to them and you can respect that part. I guess the last question became more a question about what being Christian means, and if two people believe that being Christian is two radically different things (e.g. one believes feminist and the other believes non-feminist), what does the word really mean? If a Christian is anyone who believes they are Christian, does it mean anything at all other than to the ones who claim it?

Honestly, I don't know. I've become more and more interested in the Orthodox church lately because one thing they really emphasize is the mystery of God, faith, all of it. There is so much we simply can't know.

this isn't something i'm at all eloquent at speaking about, but: there's a few things.

one being that while yes, our religious texts are inspired by God, the actual writing and translating was largely done by men in a patriarchal society and it is very much colored by that. we worship God, not words in a book, and it's important to keep things in context. some of the specific instructions quoted by religious people who support gender inequality i.e. women submitting to their husbands should really be taken as descriptive of the typical family structure at the time, not prescriptive of how all people ought to live (also looking at the broader context of the passage, husbands are also encouraged to submit to their wives, very subversive teaching at the time).

also, to return to "translated by men" I don't believe God is strictly male in the human sense - male pronouns are used yes but feminine imagery is also used to describe His/Their relationship with humanity (off the top of my head God is compared to a mother hen, as well as feminine nouns often being used for the Holy Spirit) and humans of all genders are created in God's image, not just men, so i think calling God "explicitly male" is oversimplifying a bit.

it's similar to the alternative readings of scripture which are traditionally used to prohibit homosexuality, considering the possibility that they may not apply to the modern concept of a healthy homosexual relationship. orthodox? no. but viable and textually supported? i think so. and personally, while I still question going against some of my religion's traditional interpretations (though i am in good company these days) I have felt much more spiritually alive and closer to God since I've made my peace with these things, so I take that as a good sign. I suppose to a non-religious person that sounds much less interesting and more wishy-washy than theological arguments but it's something I take a lot of comfort in.

anyway, that's my perspective as a progressive feminist Christian, I can't speak for how Muslim feminists or Jewish feminists interpret things but I'd love to hear those perspectives as well.

It frustrates me to no end that the "Orthodox" view talks about reading the Bible contextually on some issues but not on others. Even some Feminist Christians who are still homophobic. And I want to point out that it is hypocritical to take the passages about women and "roles" and whatever in the cultural context and not applying them the same today but then not taking those passages that supposedly talk about homosexuality in context and realizing that the only "gay" thing that existed back then was rape (mainly older man/young boys) and temple prostitution (which would be a problem on the "worshipping other gods" thing rather than on the man and man thing).

Explicitly male regarding God may have gone too far but most certainly "mostly described as male" and "defaulted to male/Father even in non-English languages that do not need to gender as a default" would be accurate. "Our Father" is pretty specific to me, considering plenty of matriarchal religions have gone with "Mother ____" and Christian religion today still goes with Father all over the place. Even when given the choice and ability not to; I don't mean only reciting the Lord's Prayer but in freeform prayer, it's always God, our Father. There may be people who pray to God, our non-gendered-Creator or Holy Spirit, Our Mother/Sister but I mean, I've never heard of it. I don't think it's arguable that God, if not explicitly male, is gendered by religion in general

I don't find that fact to be unfeminist in itself either. If your God just so happens to be male then that could conceivably be random chance thing, right.

But if "translated by men" is the issue, why did God choose only men to speak through? Could a feminist God not have found women to write? Could a feminist God not have empowered a woman to command enough respect that her speeches and preaching and writing were preserved and help equalize the record? Considering an all powerful deity could have chosen anyone, can we judge its choices, in that out of all possible things, it chose men over and over to record itself and bestow religious power and enlightenment upon? Even the female voices we do hear are translated through men, could that not have been different?

For me personally, it's difficult to imagine God as a feminist (by which I mean at the very least, gender-equality-promoting) figure or being or... potential entity I'm not sure what to even classify it as.

I appreciate the response though, and I agree I'd love to hear other people's take on it, agreeing OR disagreeing

It makes no sense for a monotheistic creator God to have gender. Gender is meaningless unless you have more than one option. But if God has always been the only god and pre-dates all living things, then there was not more than one option for God and therefore God has no gender.

This argument is based on your assertion that gender is meaningless unless you have more than one option, and I don't see why that is necessarily true.

Pretend you believe in a monotheistic creator Mother Goddess and she was female before all this, and gave metaphorical birth to all life. Some of that life turned out to be male, also female, hermaphroditic, asexual in the cloning itself to reproduce way, and others. That doesn't mean there wasn't a starting point, or an original state of being which other genders diverged from. But the original was what we define now as female, all along. It was meaningless back then, but it is meaningful now. You wouldn't call that Goddess genderless, she was always what we now define as female.

Disclaimer: I don't believe in Goddesses either, and obviously that's not Abrahamic, but as an example.

But would the mother goddess actually identify as female? Would that actually be the goddess's gender and not just a description retroactively imposed upon the goddess by humans who cannot fathom a divine being except through the filter of their own frame of reference?

Can the Abrahamic God actually be male and not just conceived of as male by humans?

Possibly, I don't know. I'm not religious myself.

But there seems to be not much pushback toward gendering the Abrahamic god and regarding and portraying him explicitly as a male/Father in all the organized Abrahamic religions, as well as treating him emotionally as such. A few people here and there might say that God is genderless, but that seems to be a personal one-off thing rather than the general agreement of the group at large who is content with the male authority figure of the old man in the sky.

I suppose you are saying that one way you can mesh the ideas is by saying "they are all wrong and my interpretation is correct"? But at what point is your interpretation the outlier?

What constitutes "true christianity", and how do you evaluate what's intrinsic to Christianity and what's not

I have no idea, I think you replied to the wrong person?

No, I mean.

That's what I kinda don't get about what you're saying. How do we know that the patriarchal aspects of Christianity that you're talking about are intrinsic to Christianity? What makes an interpretation of the religion that rejects those elements less truly Christian?

I mean, I didn't say Christian, I said Abrahamic, which includes all the different groups of Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, et cetera.

I can't tell you the full definition of what a true Christian is, and I'm not sure a Christian could tell you that either. But in the popular or mainstream versions of all of those, they seem to have what I listed above in common. Is there a popular (or at least non-personal or niche) version of any those in which what I said isn't true? Where God is not all-powerful and defined as or called the Father, or which doesn't have a patriarchal setup? (Genuine question, no sarcasm)

The answer of "I follow a personal and/or non-orthodox (by which I mean deviating from what most of the organized lowercase-c church preaches) interpretation of those faiths which doesn't clash with my feminist ideals" seems to be the common response

ETA: Not that that's a bad thing, or that their faith is any less valid, but rather that that seems to be the common method

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4209 ]

FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

Re: FSers who are both (abrahamic) religious and feminist

SA