Male-female equality is against nature, says Sunni scholar.
A Hindu fundamentalist says, ‘male-female equality is against nature’.
A Muslim fundamentalist agrees with the Hindu fundamentalist, says, ‘yes,you are right, male-female equality is against nature.’
If you ask a Christian fundamentalist, he will say the same thing, ‘male-female equality is against nature’. Ask a Jewish fundamentalist or a Buddhist fundamentalist or a whatever religious fundamentalist, they will give you the same answer that male-female equality is against nature.
Why do all religious fundamentalists go against women? The answer is easy. Because all religions are against women.
Right. They all think same about women.
I do not agree with this statement.
Mother nature has made women biologically more powerful than men. Survival of mankind is impossible without women. Any family ,society or country cannot progress by exploiting or abusing women in the name of religion. Protect women rights for global peace.
Congrats. for your achievements in the field of women rights protection !
What is your point? You have stated an idealised version of how the world should be without providing any new ideas on how to push it in that direction.
And how does this dream prove your previous assertion that Taslima’s idea is incorrect? Men should not disrespect women, therefore religion is not disrespectful of women? No. Two things:
(1) You cannot argue with quotes directly from the supposedly sacred texts,which demonstrated a hideous patriarchal mindset of entitlement and arrogance on behalf of Bronze-Age men and their contemporary imitators.
(2) Inequality of women may well hinder society in general, but it has been concluded by many men to be sufficiently advantageous to them that it is worth doing; arguing from first principles that full equality would be better does nothing to address the real inequality that exists today, much of which is attributable to toxic mindsets that have been instilled and maintained by religion and its associated forms of dominance and privilege.
They are insecure from the female fraternity. I think it is always in there subconscious mind that they will lose the power to rule the herd of donkeys whom they have been using till date by all means.
No more comments needed. All religions are against women. Religion = men who think they are in charge. Religion is 100% about power, control and authority to make men’s life easy so they don’t have to clean the house or the toilets.
It’s about hierarchy. And boy do people get angry when you don’t play the game.
Yep. It’s all about control. Telling others what to do, especially when what you tell is completely arbitrary is no different than a high school bully making someone humiliate theirselves just to show their power.
I thought modern paganism was all about elevating the sacred feminine. What exactly is a pagan fundamentalist?
Probably I was thinking of worshiping goddesses does not help stop oppression of women. Many Goddesses are worshiped in Hinduism but Hinduism is a terribly misogynistic religion. I am not talking about neo paganism. As far as I know, paganism is still practiced in many tribal areas. Witchcraft is still practiced.
http://blog.ishafoundation.org/lifestyle/why-human-transformation-is-the-only-way-to-prevent-rape/
Request your opinion on the same…
Thanks.
Dear Taslima,
Pls go through the below link on rape..
http://blog.ishafoundation.org/lifestyle/why-human-transformation-is-the-only-way-to-prevent-rape/
Request your views on the same…because his teachings are very logical. Want to clear my own doubts whether to follow his spiritual teachings or not. Thanks
I’m not Taslima, but I can make a pretty good guess as to her opinion on whether the solution to preventing rape is more “spirituality”. The old “you can’t be good without god” tripe, as if “spiritual” people are morally superior and don’t rape. Ha.
And drawing an equivalence between shopping and rape? Oh my Fucking gawd. What a pig. The contortions some people will go through, trying to find reasons for rape that don’t include the obvious – misogyny.
http://blog.ishafoundation.org/lifestyle/why-human-transformation-is-the-only-way-to-prevent-rape/
Request your comments on the same..
Thanks.
It is correct to say that society needs to be changed to make rape much less common than it is. One effective way to do that is to teach people what consent means. Greta Christina provides references and evidence: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/01/08/rape-prevention-aimed-at-rapists-does-work/
It is incorrect and offensive to assert, as Sadhguru does, that “investing in a spiritual possibility, a possibility beyond one’s physicality, is the only ultimate answer there is. If you want long term benefits, …”.
Sadhguru is incorrect because there is nothing beyond the physical. The mind is an emergent property of the body. Changing your mind is no more and no less than an incredibly complex series of chemical reactions. This is not a value judgement. It is simply the way things are.
Saghguru is offensive because he is exploiting an ongoing tragedy to advance his peculiar views. He may be sincere in thinking that if everyone listened to him, the world would be better. But he does not provide the evidence to back up that assertion, because it does not exist.
Male-female equality is inconsistent with the ‘flat-earth theory’. 🙂
Taslima,
I think you may need to be more careful with your terminology. Patriarchal thinking and many (or even most) religions are both dangerously mistaken**, and often occur together. But there are atheists who are misogynistic and religious people that advocate gender equality. While the two sets of {religion} and {misogyny/patriarchy} overlap, they aren’t identical.
It can be said that “many religions are against women”, and religion makes misogyny/patriarchy far worse than it might otherwise be. But removing religion from society would not by itself lead to gender equality.
**Some religions are more benignly mistaken, in that the false statements they make about reality don’t stop their members from being good members of society.
Sure, some theists edit-out the less savory elements of their belief system, such as misogyny and patriarchy. This is just the same as their willingness to cherry-pick in other areas. But this does not mean that these were not core features of the original edifice.
Am I glad that more liberal theists reject the more barbaric elements of their faith? Sure. Will I settle for religion continuing to exist in this somewhat neutered state? No, because it has plenty other harmful traits, albeit some less immediately evident, and because liberal theists help to pave the way for the distinctly non-liberal ones, at least by inaction (head-shaking and tutting do not count) when observing the latter’s deeds.
You are correct. There are many reasons why religion should be challenged. And there are many reasons why patriarchy/misogyny should be challenged.
I merely point out that those two sets of reasons are not quite the same, and that a gender-equal society and a secular society do not immediately follow from each other (witness all of the atheists who object to the goals of Atheism+). There are a large number of social problems to be solved. They may overlap with each other, but they are still distinct.
I think you are wrong about the buddhists. I don’t remember the Buddha ever saying that females are inferior. Buddhism says are living creatures deserve respect and can achieve enlightenment.
Sikhism is another religion that’s not that sexist. Sikhs think god has both male and female aspects.
The Baha’i’ faith says that women and men are equal.
Not all religions are as bad for equality as you think. I’m not sure sweeping generalisations about religion will convince anyone who is not atheist already. It would be better to stick to specific teachings or acts by religious leaders you disagree with.
I do not agree on religions preaching male-female inequality. Since this is just again a one liner picked up from some place. Rather would like to consider the context in which each of the relgions actually meant that statement “male-female equality is against nature.”. These statements could have been stated under circumstances that are logical and valid. But yes!!!!! I agree to this, that men today preach and believe in the male-female inequality. Most, if not all. And this mind set needs a change.
Yes, Correct !! All religions are against women…Of course…I Believe it !! Because these religions are men made.The time when these religions were created or written or proposed is only by “Men”…at that very time women hardly had the right to speak freely..think , express their thoughts or protest..or to take part in any social activity….Men dominated thoughts..concepts..are included in religions & mythologies….or religious concepts, I’m Giving Just a simple example:-
In Hinduism we are all familiar with “TARPAN” ( তর্পন ) ritual during “MAHALAYA” just before the festival DURGA PUJA, what is the main reason to do “Tarpan”? the answer is we do “TARPAN” to give food ,water & respect to the Soul of our forefathers..My Question is “Why it’s only for the forefathers ( “পিতৃ্পুরুষ”কে জল দানের প্রথা ) ?”….why educated people don’t give food & water to the souls of their grandmothers? I mean the wives & daughters of our “Forefathers” ? (If it’s considered the souls take food & water even after death)…I have asked this Question to my father & best friend.. they don’t have a proper answer…. But I know the answer.. This is just one example I’m showing…there are many anti woman concept in Hinduism & other religions..! So I do believe Taslima Di is fully correct…Religions are anti woman..& we all should be ashamed of such concepts that teach us to think Man & woman are different.. if there is at all any difference, it’s only in Physiology..!!
AVIJIT DAS
KOLKATA
While I agree oftentimes there is a believe in male-female inequality among many fundamentalists, to generalize that to saying all religions are anti-women does not serve us. I understand the emotional reaction to say YES this is true. We have to be careful when choosing to transform such attitudes in our world that we do not just oppose such ideas militantly. Militant opposition just breeds the exact and violent other end of the spectrum. Recognizing instead that when we evolve, and how we act and discuss such matters really does change our world.
As far as some comments stating that religious people cherry-pick what they will believe or not, can this not be said for every writer of holy scripts? That they were prone to cherry-pick based on how well they did “hear”, and let’s not forget most of these works have been translated and edited a great deal. So here fundamentalists are trying to say we should hold to the cherry-pickings of ancient cultures that no longer serve us? That doesn’t make much sense, and that’s an understatement.
saying that something is against nature is not a convincing argument for me anyway—i dont accept the authority of nature—driving a car, taking cold medicine, building levees to prevent or reduce flooding—dyeing one’s hair blue—all these things are against nature and im just fine with all of them
The shades appeared instantly, however are something special for for Christmas time. I will discover further should they are commenced. Doss http://boschappliances.mobi/automotive-aftermarket/cyclejerseysale-provides-scott-bicycling-hat-of-great-status
It’s the best time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I want to suggest you some interesting things or advice. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I want to read even more things about it!