Religion and Women

Excellent article, LB -- thanks for posting it. I agree with its intent and agree that "when religious institutions exclude women from their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferier". We should be so beyond the issue of women's equality but are not, even in the "western" world where we are closer but, in my view, are losing ground.

Today, when religious institutions exclude women from their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferior.

Or maybe they are smart enough not to join in the oppression of others power has a way of corrupting .

.

Mr. Kristof's moral language is explicit throughout this article. Personally, I think he makes several good points. However, a self-professed moral relativist cannot say the same. 

Let's take a few of his statements.

Who are 'most of us'? North Americans, or humanity as a whole? Could he be hinting at the fact that 'most' of us (whoever that is) know intuitively that oppression of other human beings, especially on the basis of gender, is not right? Further, interesting that he should say that the oppression women is not slightly, but profoundly unethical. What does he mean by this? I'm going to wager that he is arguing that it is objectively wrong, and that religious oppressors ought not to subjugate women, which is more clearly revealed below.

Why 'stand up' for something, if one type of action, in this case gender discrimination, is really no 'better' or 'worse' than any other action? Who are 'The Elders' (whom Kristof claims are right) to impose their subjective moral opinions on others - even cross-culturally? 'Human rights' here are upholded as though they were universally true and binding on all people - and further, that they are even 'sacred'. If it is universally true that all humans inherently possess human dignity (and thus, that a violation of another's dignity is wrong), then moral relativism is false.

Where moral relativism claims there can be no way to judge one person's moral actions as better or worse than any other, cultural relativism claims that there can be no way to judge one culture's practices as 'better' or 'worse' than any other. Therefore, though other cultures subjugate or genitally mutilate women for instance, perhaps as a religious mandate, it is impossible for one culture to say that these practices are better or worse than theirs, since it must 'work for them'. That 'The Elders' are calling all religions and traditions to revise their ways regarding their treatment of women, and conform them to 'their' way of thinking, clearly reveals that regardless of cultural and religious differences (or even commands), people need to embrace the morally superior action of practicing gender equality.

Of course, according to moral, and especially cultural relativism in this case, there is no way to say that mass raping, bride burning, throwing acid in one's face, wife beating, giving out lower wages based on gender, or executing homosexuals, are really wrong actions - they are merely based on one's subjective 'taste' over another.

When people profess to believe in moral and cultural relativism, they lose any ability to accuse others of wrongdoing or injustice. Personally, I side with The Elders' and Kristof's' argument that people ought ('oughtness' being non-existent in the absence of objective values) to do away with gender oppression, and embrace gender equality in its place, and I can do so consistently because I admit that there are objective, overarching, universal values, such as human dignity, and that accordingly any actions which violate this principle can be said to really be 'worse' than those actions which uphold it.

 (Watch the red herrings abound). *waves at GR.

Geo - I say again; I do not believe moral relativists hold that there are no moral/ethical truths or objective values; they just recognize that (a) these are formed by perspective (EG: things *I* hold as values obviously I think are well thought out and reasoned, and as such would hope that most-to-all would share them with me; recognizing however that I am a human and therefore imperfect, I recognize someone with a different perspective might hold differen values and have reached them in just as well-considered a way, and consider those objective truths too ... it does NOT mean however that I do not hold my convictions strongly or consider them 'truths'), and (b) some wrongs are wronger than others (ie; it is wrong to slap a woman; am I a moral relativist to say it is wronger to murder her?).

Getting back to the original point though, and off this topic which Geo tries to turn every thread he enters into, I think this is a great article and I appreciate the posting of it. Kristof is absolutely correct, and I will point out again that at least from the Christiian perspective it is actually un-Pauline to not involve women as church leaders; Paul, in his 'true' letters, actually respects and advocates female involvement.

That's because you do not understand what moral relativism truly entails. Moral relativism asserts that any moral and ethical viewpoints and practices of individuals (in all groups, cultures, and peoples) are equally valid and true. This law applies to the entire universe. Since there are no 'priviledged' viewpoints, no good-better-best evaluations can possibly be made.

This does not mean that you still may not 'feel' good about some beliefs or practices. These feelings, however are subjective and cannot be imposed on anyone else. What it does mean is that you cannot accuse others of wrongdoing and injustice, since there are no 'fixed' standards outside of peoples' personal tastes.

Like I said, of course you may still have your personal likes and dislikes, but you may not claim that any actions or practices are actually wrong - since your subjective opinion is not priviledged over anyone else's. To answer your question, you cannot claim that a woman being murdered is actually 'worse' than a woman being slapped, since your personal opinion is not based on any objective standard from which you can deduce that certain actions are actually better or worse than others - and therefore it is also impossible for your opinion to be any 'better' than a person who believes that murdering a woman is not worse than slapping her.

*Shaking his head*

First of all, in all of these thread my point directly pertains to the subject matter, right down to quoting actual words and situations. By no means am I hijacking the threads. Secondly, if you want this argument to go away, all you have to do is demonstrate that it is false.

In the meantime, it is an inescapable reality that we all must face. Many folks here have been brainwashed in society's 'true for you, but not true for me' mantra for so long that they are blind to any alternate explanations - I understand this, which is why I'm directly challenging folks to consider this. It is hypocritical and dishonest to claim "all morals are relative" on one thread and then on the next denounce certain actions as really wrong, in a way that of course they wouldn't want their own reasoning turned back on them, relegating their opinion irrelevant. Of course, these same people will trumpet this reasoning to the skies until someone wrongs them personally - then it becomes objective. It is appalling.

Now, curiously, you think that Kristof is absolutely correct in his position, and that his is a 'great' article. What makes this so? That's merely your subjective opinion, no better than any other. In fact, Kristof's and The Elder's' positions regarding the oppression of women are also no better than the opinions of whom they're coming against, if morality is subjective. Who are they to impose their subjective opinions on other religions, traditions, and cultures? I do not believe you could have read the article carefully enough - the moral language in this article reveals very much that the author has a honed sense of objective right and wrong, as do the Elders, regarding the oppression of women. If they didn't believe it was really wrong they wouldn't be urging people across cultures to accept their particular moral opinion. If you agree that oppression of women is really wrong, regardless of the religious/culture/tradition practicing it, you are not a moral relativist. Further, if your opinion (as is Kristof's and The Elders') is correct in that this actually IS wrong, then moral relativism is false.

Mr Kristof is absolutely correct. We in our churches and faiths should be leaders in reversing and speaking out against any kind of oppression, whether it is women, children, races or different faiths and even war. What within our churches, synagogues and faiths do we need to change. What within our own families and neighborhoods do we need to speak out or become that wall that seperates the oppressed from the oppressor, or the abused from the abuser 

We have a winner!

Geo, you're obviously an intelligent young man, but I'd be more inclined to consider your posts if you weren't quite so abrasive in your replies.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. 

I guess I'm just tired of people accusing me of derailing threads when I'm directly addressing them. Also, it's curious how no one seems to point out 'abrasiveness' in others when they ridicule others or dismiss their arguments as mere 'bs' or worse - and that as a substitute for argument. While I won't make such fallacious attacks, I have a tendency to be analytical and more blunt when someone starts dialoguing with me in a condescending way. That said, I will consider what you have written.

I don't think challenging people is abrasive .... if you believe in something a person should be able to back up their belief without whining about how abrasive other people's responses are .....

Despots almost invariably use whatever religion they have to justfy their tyrrany, unless they are pushing another form of ideology to replace it. These despots are even more evil, because they can't stand sharing power with anybody - even religious leaders.

This becomes their weakness in the long run.

Thus tinpot domestic tyrants act similarly, using religion or ideology to justfy their tyranny of their family.

Christianity is the only religion I know of that even breached the subject of the equality of women. Christ was unmistakeable (his response to the question of the wife of 7 brothers).

Once you resort to personal abuse, you've already lost the argument.

If we're honest, we've all done that, been there.

A well-constructed argument doesn't NEED personal abuse. In fact, it often suggests the reverse - namely that the proponent is unsure of his/her position.  

No argument. That's how my brother always ended a disagreement - by punching me out.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.

Excerpt from Speech by Jimmy Carter to the Parliament of the World's Religions, Melbourne, Australia,Dec. 3, 2009

The above  link is another worthwhile read as is The Elders' Equality for Women & Girls

Personally it matters little to me why someone  is outraged by the abuse and inequality of women around the world, what does matter is if they act upon that emotion to work for change.  It is with hope that I read the words of the Elders, a group of globally respected men and women of considerable talent - perhaps they will be heard.

But it is hopelessness I feel when others deflect and dismiss these men and women and their motives. To the young woman in India set aflame in a "kitchen accident" it does not matter what motivates either the attack or the rescue, just that one or the other occurs. For her sake what should be important is that the rescue be held as the acceptable standard, ethically, legally and morally.

We have not progressed from our ancestors, for all the lofty words and human rights declarations there is still slavery and oppression, violence and war.  We continue to justify the acts with sophistic arguments about morality and tradition that are nothing but a cover to exert one's superiority over another.

I see Geo is continuing to make logically unsupported claims about what "follows" from meta-ethical relativism.  I recall having asked him to support these claims in the "Fundie Atheist" thread, and before that.  So far, nothing of the sort has happened - instead, he just keeps on repeating the unsupported claims.

What kind of pathos leads to this kind of behaviour?

From the On-line Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy:

"As in the case of descriptive and meta-ethical relativism, however, there is no direct path from [meta-ethical] to normative relativism. One could hold consistently that there is no single true morality while judging and interfering with others on the basis of one's own morality. Wong has proposed a version of normative relativism consistent with the point that nothing normative follows straightforwardly from meta-ethical relativism. Meta-ethical relativism needs to be supplemented with a liberal contractualist ethic to imply an ethic of nonintervention. A liberal contractualist ethic requires that moral principles be justifiable to the individuals governed by these principles. If no single morality is most justified for everyone, liberal normative relativism may require one not to interfere with those who have a different morality, though the requirement of noninterference may not be absolute when it comes into conflict with other moral requirements such as prohibitions against torture or the killing of innocents."

The above is consistent with my view and would include the moral requirement of equality of women.

Geo - all fair points worth considering. Let me address what I perceive as the crux of your argument:

1. Moral Relativists MUST embrace the concept that all morals are relative and there is no right or wrong:

You are right - this is not my interpretation or understanding of moral relativism. My understanding of it is as I described; that while I believe there are universal truths of right and wrong out there, and most right-thinking people have the general crux of the 'biggies', we can as imperfect humans can only grasp this through our own limited lens. As such yes, there might be some variants between MY right and wrong, and yours (I would hazard a somewhat educated guess, for example, that abortion or same-sex marriage would be among them) - and that there are things which are 'more right' and 'more wrong' than others (ie I feel divorce is always a 'bad option' that no one 'prefers' - but it can be infinitely better than remaining in a truly toxic marriage which only stands to become more toxic with time).

2. You resent the suggestion you derail threads with the discussion of objective values vs. moral relativity, and feel that in this thread you were directly addressing the pertinent issues:

Not my perception. The issue in this particular thread was the historic oppression of women under the guise of religious correctness. Not moral relativism. Not to say ancilliary discussions can't be brought into threads; I just have yet to see a  contribution of yours to a thread that didn't involve pointing out the hypocrisy of moral relativists; perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

3. I myself expressed some objective moral certitude by suggesting this was a 'great' article and 'absolutely correct':

Perhaps an ironic and poor choice of words, but they refer to the facts. Kristof pointed out, in a well-written article, that women have historically ... ah you saw how I described it above. This is historically and factually true, and I (and many others) consider it wrong. Do *I* consider that to be objectively true? Of course I do. I also acknowledge other people might disagree - that is their right.

And just on the side, 4. In reference to yor later post about people condescending to you:

I don't know if you were referring to myself, the person who admonished you might catch more flies with honey, or voicing a general grievance, but speaking for myself, I was trying to engage you on a respectful level. I actually assumed you were trying to make a clear and eloquent point and wanted to address it; yes I happened to point out it is a point you have made elsewhere frequently. But I assumed no condescension on your part, simply wanted to engage in a clear and straightforward manner as you do. However, your reply? Perhaps there was a bit of projection in the accusation of condescension, when many like myself who simply have different definitions and understandings than you have implied hypocrisy assigned to them, and a good headshake to boot, as per your asterisks.