fandomsecrets | [ 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

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

You didn't come across that way at all, no worries.

As I wrote my response, the two points you mention (childbearing/human details) did make me pause, because I definitely see what you're saying. While i don't have a response, it's definitely worth pondering. I always saw a woman's ability to carry life within herself as something powerful (and many matriarchial religions focused on the life bearing), but i can see the importance placed on that leading to certain expectations of womamhood. In regards to the second point, I've been taught that God pervades all the circumstances and human details, so in a way, they are not irrelevant. He meets me in my circumstances, which includes all the human details. In my own experience (which grows and changes over time), I hope that God can answer to these human details, because my experiences are not only purely metaphysical, or spiritual, but they occur in the Flesh. so while there are things that are eclipsed for me (which as you pointed out, aren't for others), there are still details that I await, hope, and expect an answer for. And that is part of my own journey.

Thanks for pointing those things out. I definitely can see where you're coming from. If I contradicted myself at some points, forgive me.

[ SECRET POST #4209 ]

SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: SA

Re: SA