Women's Role In Religions

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by 9Harmony

Hi Silver,

I don't think the Baha'i view is that there should be no distinction between men and women. My understanding is that men and women are different, but equally important. We have different strengths which compliment each other.

I like the analogy of the bird, men and women are the two wings of a bird, and not until both are fully developed, will the bird truly be able to fly. (the bird being humanity)

So i really don't think you disagree with the Baha'i understanding.

Have a great day!

I agree with that bird analogy, and perhaps my view doesn't differ so much from the Baha'i point of view. I do think women should get equal pay as men, and heck I'm even okay with a woman running for president or prime minister , as long as she isn't some radical feminist. But I just hate feminist today that pressure women to become breadwinners and what not because it shouldn't be their responsibility, it is the man responsibility to take care of his wife and to lead the family as well.

So in other words I am for the modern Japanese view of women, not the modern Western View of women. Modern Japanese women can do what ever they want (vote, go for any job) but still have their feminity, unlike many western women who are pressued to "compete" with men. What is there to compete, men are better than somethings than women and women are better than something than men. Men were created/evolved to act one masculine and women were created/evolved to act their way. That is how it has been ever since homo sapiens have been around . Motherhood is a very important role for women, and providing for the mother is a very important job for men.

So yea women are definatley equal under the eyes of God, it doesn't mean they have to be the same or do the same exact things ! If that is the Baha'i view of women then I guess I agree.

[Silverbackman]

BTW all religions have a reason for the laws they make. Dressing in modesty for example is created in order to prevent rape, similarly there have been strict laws in the past regarding men's control over women. Basicly the whole point of this in the past was to show men are created as the leaders, nothing more. We don't have to follow things so strictly as what the religions teach us. Women do not have to cover up every inch of their body like what fundie muslims think. Women do not have to worship their husbands like Gods and follow them with blind obedience like what a fundie hindu might think. We need to realize the bigger picture in all this, and not follow these scripures literally but at least we need to heed some of them.

Similarly why are homosexuals considered evil in Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism? The truth is homosexuality is not a wrong as long as it does not become so open that is considered equal to a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not evil, and God/Nature doesn't care less if someone is gay, but God does not want homosexuality be equated to a union between a man and a woman because it clearly is not the same thing!

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So in other words I am for the modern Japanese view of women, not the modern Western View of women. Modern Japanese women can do what ever they want (vote, go for any job) but still have their feminity, unlike many western women who are pressued to "compete" with men.

I was very much under the impression that many modern Japanese women find Japan very oppressive - heck, they were only allowed access to the contraceptive pill a couple of years ago.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I was very much under the impression that many modern Japanese women find Japan very oppressive - heck, they were only allowed access to the contraceptive pill a couple of years ago.

Not sure about their problems in the reproductive department. There are other type of family problems in Japan, such as men that stop having sex with their wives after marriage, which is sort of evil. Of course no nation is perfect. But as a whole the attitude of Japanese women modern women but have are little like the women in the West in their atitudes on life. They don't feel forced to conquer men as if it is there life to surpass men (which is the goal of no real man or woman). There not trying to become the head of the house, they don't believe that their goal. I hope all Eastern Countries modernize the way Japan, NOT the way the West did. As far as I've heard Japanese get many reproductive prevention pills, I don't see why they wouldn't.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

BTW all religions have a reason for the laws they make. Dressing in modesty for example is created in order to prevent rape, similarly there have been strict laws in the past regarding men's control over women. Basicly the whole point of this in the past was to show men are created as the leaders, nothing more. We don't have to follow things so strictly as what the religions teach us. Women do not have to cover up every inch of their body like what fundie muslims think. Women do not have to worship their husbands like Gods and follow them with blind obedience like what a fundie hindu might think. We need to realize the bigger picture in all this, and not follow these scripures literally but at least we need to heed some of them.

Hi Silverbackman,

Dressing modestly does not prevent rape. If that was the case there would be no rape in Islamic countries.

True equality of the sexes would be when each person is allowed to explore his/her potential, desires and passions without having to stick to rigid role definitions. So in an equal society a woman who is inclined to lead, become the president or even the chief of army would be encouraged to follow her passion without being told that she cannot lead because "women were not made by God to lead".
Similarly a man who wants to stay back home to look after his kids would not be ridiculed and told "A man is supposed to provide for his family". That according to me would be true equality.

regards.

[At_the_Wellspring]

Hi Silverbackman

I'm sorry but I wouldn't agree with you that Japanese modern women have it all worked out better than 'Western woman'. I'm not wanting to put down any culture or place here, but I just want to make a bit of a comparison here.

My sister has spent a lot of time in Japan, she went to high school there for a few months, has been back several times working there for a year and travelling there other times. She is now married to a very cool, very laid-back Japanese guy. I have also been there, though only once.

My sister found it unusual when she was in Japan that the girls at her school all wanted to get into a good university for the sole purpose of getting a 'good' husband, and then that was it, there was no need for life-planning ahead of that. Whereas at school here (also girls school) in career planning they would all imagine what they would be doing in 10, 20, 30 years, not only in terms of family, but also career. I'm not criticising Japan, singular, as I know there are many communities here and elsewhere where there are not high-expectations career-wise for women. But I do know that Japan is a society where strong gender differences and expectations exist, and where only a small percentage of women are in employment. There are huge societal and family pressures and expectations not only for women but also for men.

Anyway, away from Japan as a focus, I would agree also that men and women are different, but I don't think that the difference is so extreme, like polar opposites. There are varying levels of 'feminity' and 'masculinity' in everyone. As well as the black and white there are a whole lot of shades of grey between them too. And I don't mean just in terms of sexuality.

I would have to agree with I am Free

[quote]True equality of the sexes would be when each person is allowed to explore his/her potential, desires and passions without having to stick to rigid role definitions. So in an equal society a woman who is inclined to lead, become the president or even the chief of army would be encouraged to follow her passion without being told that she cannot lead because "women were not made by God to lead".
Similarly a man who wants to stay back home to look after his kids would not be ridiculed and told "A man is supposed to provide for his family". That according to me would be true equality. [quote]

I would not call myself a feminist, but I believe simply in equal opportunity and personal freedom - the ability to do something without societal pressure or discouragement. And I don't think that liberating women to have equal opportunity in careers/ leadership would mean that women would no longer choose family - it is in our biology - the survival of the human species is dependant on the fact that men have the urge to 'spread seed' as they say, and that women have a hunger to 'nurture'.

I intend to have both a career and a family. Ultimately, if I had to make the choice between children and career, I would choose children. I am just lucky enough to live somewhere where it is possible to do both, where I have relative equality and freedom and where there is not the expectation where women must choose between married life and a career.

Feminity can still exist in a place of equality and freedom, it is in our genes and in our spirit. And we don't have to all be blaring feminists either. Sometimes you just need a bit of extremism to get the ball rolling.

I imagine my thoughts are a little random and unstructured to read sorry...

Andrea

[At_the_Wellspring]

Sorry that was a long post! Guess I was defending my place as a 'modern western woman'.


Just thought I'd add... We've had a woman Prime Minister for the last 7 or 8 years now (first one took over leadership of govt for 1-2 years before losing the election to the opposition, our current and recently re-elected PM). The CEO of Telecom, our largest company is a woman, our Governer General is a woman, our Cheif Justice is a woman...

New Zealand is in a great place economically, culturally, low crime, low unemployment, etc right now. (who said in is not in women's nature/ God's intention for women to lead?)

This is not women specifically trying to take over or dominate men, it is simply women doing their jobs well.

Anyway, enough from me for now.

[Silverbackman]

Hello I am free and At_the_Wellspring,

The purpose of dressing modesty in Islam isn't to prevent rape, yes you are correct. But keep in mind many of the laws of religion were created for the fundamental reasons of preventing certain wrongs from happening. Some religions may teach anger is a sin because it is against God, but if we look at it more in an anthropological sense the reason why anger is a sin is to prevent people from harming others. Religions are to be taken metaphorically not literally, they contain much wisdom, and many might even be from God.

By the way when I say God, my definition of God is mostly Nature. I believe that Nature can tell us a lot on how we should live. For thousands to millions of years women have been the mothers who took care of the children at home, sharing stories and educating their children on how to act in society while men went out hunted for food and "brought back the bacon". I do believe this simple life we lived back then can very much apply to us now, and is why it has appeared in many religions. Of course we don't live in the Savannah anymore, living in tents and what not but the basic outline of how our civilization functioned back then is very effective in all timelines.

Also it would not be as efficient for the husband and wife to do the exact same things. One spouses designed for a specific task while the other with their specific fact is far more effective than two spouses doing the same thing. Before human civilization everyone in the civilization did the same thing, although there were still differences between the sexes on what each gender was designed to do. However 24,000 years ago the specialized society arose, no longer did everyone do the same thing. Specific tasks were assigned to different members of the society. This created more efficiency in society, and is very applicable to family life. If a woman specialized in homemaking she will be far more effective than both a man and a woman doing the same thing. And this will give more time for men to work and specialize in providing all the needs of his wife and the family. It is really a beautiful thing the more you think about it.

My definition of equality is when men and women have the same legal rights recognized by the government, which is okay. But supporting the ideal behavior is not bad. Smoking is legal in the US for example but there are anti-smoking ads all the time on TV to support the ideal behavior of not smoking. Don't get me wrong, women being more than mothers or whatever is not as bad as smoking, but my point is the ideal behavior is not wrong when supported.

Of course my idea of ideal behavior may differ than yours, so wouldn't it be better that society not promote any behavior at all for women? Well the truth is in Western Society in many ways does promote the career driven woman more than the homemaker woman. All over the media you see feminist propaganda showing women are superior to men and can do many of what men were designed to better than men and that women were built to rule men.

And what is even more bias about the media is that they claim that women naturally want to do the same exact things as men and hate the idea of being a homemaker and mother. They are trying to fight off over 4 million years of human evolution to promote their ideas.

But hey, people have the right to believe whatever they want, right? Their opinion as valid as yours or mine, but it doesn't change the fact they promote their ideals which many people strongly disagree and at the same time oppose.

So no I don't mind the West because they promote equality of the sexes, I mind the West because they try to promote one lifestyle for women over the other.

The other opposite extreme of promoting women to do one thing is in the countries like Iran that say that women have no other life than the home and motherhood. Clearly Iran is as much if not more bias in their support of the other extreme of homemaking woman as the West is toward the career woman.

That is why I like countries like Japanese culture as opposed to Western Culture. In Japan a woman can do whatever she wants with little propaganda in the media on how they want to live (neither promoting homemaking women nor career-driven women) and it just so happens women manage to do both! Women do have jobs and are career driven the first part of their life and when they get married they give up their career for something for more important than anything a man or woman can do, and that is motherhood.

So I don't want you guys to get me wrong, I am not completely for women having a career but at the same time I am very much for the role of women given by the supreme Goddess of the universe; Mother Nature .

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by At_the_Wellspring

Hi Silverbackman

I'm sorry but I wouldn't agree with you that Japanese modern women have it all worked out better than 'Western woman'. I'm not wanting to put down any culture or place here, but I just want to make a bit of a comparison here.

My sister has spent a lot of time in Japan, she went to high school there for a few months, has been back several times working there for a year and travelling there other times. She is now married to a very cool, very laid-back Japanese guy. I have also been there, though only once.

My sister found it unusual when she was in Japan that the girls at her school all wanted to get into a good university for the sole purpose of getting a 'good' husband, and then that was it, there was no need for life-planning ahead of that. Whereas at school here (also girls school) in career planning they would all imagine what they would be doing in 10, 20, 30 years, not only in terms of family, but also career. I'm not criticising Japan, singular, as I know there are many communities here and elsewhere where there are not high-expectations career-wise for women. But I do know that Japan is a society where strong gender differences and expectations exist, and where only a small percentage of women are in employment. There are huge societal and family pressures and expectations not only for women but also for men.

Anyway, away from Japan as a focus, I would agree also that men and women are different, but I don't think that the difference is so extreme, like polar opposites. There are varying levels of 'feminity' and 'masculinity' in everyone. As well as the black and white there are a whole lot of shades of grey between them too. And I don't mean just in terms of sexuality.


Andrea

What is wrong with that? What is wrong if that woman wanted to go to a university for the sole purpose of getting a good husband? Why is that reason any lower than a woman going to a university to get a career?

That is basically my point here, you already are assuming that women wanting to be a wife, mother, or homemaker is a sign of inequality and oppression. This is clearly what the feminist want you to think, be careful on what you see on TV . Don't be so swayed by what your culture or media telling you, be a freethinker on the issue and you will find that being a homemaker and mother is as important if not far more important than any other occupation in the world. Do not only be a freethinker in this issue, be one in all issues.



The biggest ignorance of the Western World is in fact their idea that liberals are the freethinkers. This is far from the truth, if anything centrists are the number one freethinkers because centrists (true centrists) know that the liberal and conservative are both valid and invalid. We cannot say the liberal way is right, neither can we say the conservative is right. The truth is in the middle, some things are meant to be liberal while others are meant to be conservatives .

I suggest the same thing to women living in Iran, who are forced to listen to the propaganda that women outside her roles cannot be. Obviously this way is as wrong as the Western's opposite view. The truth is somewhere in the middle .

[At_the_Wellspring]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

What is wrong with that? What is wrong if that woman wanted to go to a university for the sole purpose of getting a good husband? Why is that reason any lower than a woman going to a university to get a career?

That is basically my point here, you already are assuming that women wanting to be a wife, mother, or homemaker is a sign of inequality and oppression. This is clearly what the feminist want you to think, be careful on what you see on TV . Don't be so swayed by what your culture or media telling you, be a freethinker on the issue and you will find that being a homemaker and mother is as important if not far more important than any other occupation in the world. Do not only be a freethinker in this issue, be one in all issues.

Hi Silverbackman. Thanks for your first post, I understand what you are trying to say, but there are still a few points on which I have to disagree.

Firstly, I am definitely not saying there is anything wrong with wanting to be a homemaker and mother - as I said, I myself have a very strong urge to be a mother and to care and nurture my children myself rather than leave them in the hands of a nanny while I work. In some ways I understand what you are saying when the role of strong career woman is praised higher than being 'just' a homemaker these days. I disagree with that.

I agree with having choice. What I don't agree with is when someone doesn't have a choice to make those choices. This could be because of legal restrictions (such as you are saying), or it could be from prejudice, social or family expectation and pressure. This can be very subtle, and so it could be said that it no longer exists. Yet it very much does.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I believe that Nature can tell us a lot on how we should live. For thousands to millions of years women have been the mothers who took care of the children at home, sharing stories and educating their children on how to act in society while men went out hunted for food and "brought back the bacon". I do believe this simple life we lived back then can very much apply to us now, and is why it has appeared in many religions. Of course we don't live in the Savannah anymore, living in tents and what not but the basic outline of how our civilization functioned back then is very effective in all timelines..

I agree with you in that nature is very much who we are - so many things can all be linked back to our basic hunter/ gatherer instincts. BUT if nature is indicating to us how we should be living, isn't it about now at this point in time that we are beginning to over-populate our earth, so that we are rapidly running out of resources? While much of the 3rd world still has a rapidly increasing population, doesn't it make sense that in other parts of the world the population growth is diminishing, that women now have alternatives to a career as a mother? Biology ensures the continuation of the species - correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that we are in danger of dying out. In fact it would do our world some good to reduce our population growth.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Also it would not be as efficient for the husband and wife to do the exact same things. One spouses designed for a specific task while the other with their specific fact is far more effective than two spouses doing the same thing. Before human civilization everyone in the civilization did the same thing, although there were still differences between the sexes on what each gender was designed to do. However 24,000 years ago the specialized society arose, no longer did everyone do the same thing. Specific tasks were assigned to different members of the society. This created more efficiency in society, and is very applicable to family life. If a woman specialized in homemaking she will be far more effective than both a man and a woman doing the same thing. And this will give more time for men to work and specialize in providing all the needs of his wife and the family. It is really a beautiful thing the more you think about it

I see the beauty in a partnership providing for one another, and I am not wanting to diminish the role that women have provided in home-making, mothering and nurturing their families over the past centuries. But as you say, things have changed, we have become more 'specialised', becoming more efficient etc. So can't we begin to recognise and value the diversity of men and women rather than retaining the narrow view that there are only two, distinct types of human beings - men and women.

While this is mostly obviously true (visually), physically, even science these days, is showing that there is not necessarily such a defining line between us. Women also have testosterone, at varying levels. If one woman has a higher level of testosterone it may be that one 'masculine' quality is more evident in her. For example, she is able to understand 3 dimensional spaces more comprehensively that the 'average' women. So she may recognise this strength and go on to become an aviation engineer. In true equality, she should come across no barriers/ prejudice (whether legal or simply subtle) in acheiving that goal.

I am not rejecting the fact that we can make generalisations about characteristics of men and women. All I am saying is that traditionally we have expected men and women to act in that way, within that mold. I'm sure along the way 'behind the scenes' not everyone fitted to that outward mold - perhaps the occasional woman in the family was more 'together' 'organised' and a 'leader' than her husband, perhaps the occasional father was kinder and more empathic/ nurturing to his children than his wife..? (despite outward appearances)

Anyone who typically fell outside of the expectation of what men and women have been harassed. Men who were too feminine/ weak/ sensitive/ gay not being considered 'manly' enough. Women in leadership being hassled for being too masculine, too dominating.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

And what is even more bias about the media is that they claim that women naturally want to do the same exact things as men and hate the idea of being a homemaker and mother.

I wouldn't claim that the media is that strong, personally. Perhaps in the last few years or in the earlier feminist movement (though I'm no expert). Perhaps media and liberation - the ability to have a career, to be a leader which was currently so supressed, was reason for celebration? Also, I think sometimes it is necessary to have a bit of discontentment at inequality in order to raise awareness of an issue and to bring about change. Obviously different places and cultures need to modernise in their own way (for example France needed a revolution, England didn't, to bring power to the people - some places may only progress with disharmony others might change more slowly over time).

More recently, though, I have seen more evidence that we have relaxed a little, and that science is finding some basic differences between men and women (monitoring reactions in the brain etc, levels of testosterone). It seems that we are realising that there are differences, but that there are always variations. We need to accept that there are all kinds of variations, and therefore not have expectations. We need to accept that a woman might make as equally a brilliant boss or leader or construction project manager or engineer as a man. We also need to recognise that men can make brilliant stay-at-home-dads, nurses, teachers etc. I'm not saying that we should aim for a 50-50 balance in any particular job, as I agree that nature puts us generally into the category of man / woman and with that comes particular attributes that may lead to particular careers etc.

When the expectation remains that a womans place really is ideally in the home (not that there is anything wrong with being a homemaker/ mother) then it can be very difficult for someone who does not fit that mold to feel 'normal' or 'acepted'.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

That is why I like countries like Japanese culture as opposed to Western Culture. In Japan a woman can do whatever she wants with little propaganda in the media on how they want to live (neither promoting homemaking women nor career-driven women) and it just so happens women manage to do both! Women do have jobs and are career driven the first part of their life and when they get married they give up their career for something for more important than anything a man or woman can do, and that is motherhood..

Homemaking and mothering needs to be a choice not an expectation. When it is expected to go to university, find a husband and become a homemaker, then anyone who falls outside of this is considered slightly abnormal, or is not fully catered for in society, may feel pressure or disappointment from family/ friends/ self.. etc

I agree that we need to recognise the importance of and value of motherhood. Perhaps we need to relax a bit and re-embrace motherhood as a valid career option. But it still needs to be a free and liberal choice - this is what I would predict is not completely apparent in some strongly traditional societies where the pressure of expectation can be huge. And I imagine if you were to truthfully survey a portion of Japanese women, I would say they do not necessarily feel as ideally free in choice as you may believe they are.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

My definition of equality is when men and women have the same legal rights recognized by the government..

I guess my definition of equality is different. I believe equality must first come from the law, then with freedom from prejudice/ racism/ sexism (now there are laws to deal with those offenses, though they still exist in subtle ways), then there is freedom from expectation - with the ability to be completely ones-self and make completely ones own choices without outside influence/ domination/ expectation swaying your choice.



We also need to allow fathers to be loving and nurturing to their children, not only in the monetary sense of being the 'breadwinner', but also in the sense of allowing them to spend time with their family. I think its wonderfull that fathers as well as mothers here can now take a significant amount of paid leave around the time that their child is born to be with and enjoy their family.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

If a woman specialized in homemaking she will be far more effective than both a man and a woman doing the same thing. And this will give more time for men to work and specialize in providing all the needs of his wife and the family...It is really a beautiful thing the more you think about it.

I think it is a beautiful thing when both the mother and father truly share parenting, both contributing to the finances and time spent with the children. This is how I personally would like my (future) family to be - where I can continue to work and engage my mind whether only 10 or 20 or 30 hours a week (again, not to say that mothering is not valid use of time and mind...) and where my partner/ husband can also share looking after the children and also contributing finances. I find this a beautiful thing. (though again I'm not saying it is a choice that everyone will want to make)

I do not think that parents sharing the child-care/ financing is 'doing the same thing' and therefore inefficient. For a start, both should be equally capable at each - we already know that women are equally as intelligent as men and can therefore survive in the workforce earning money. I also know that some of my male friends/ acquaintences are far better cooks than some of my female friends. And anyway, the thing I consider of most importance is not the tasks to be done, but the time spent with the family. And there can never be 'wastage' or 'inefficiency' in that. Just because I have one friend doesn't mean I don't need another. One has the patience to listen to my long stories, one I can laugh and joke around with, another i can debate the meaning of life with.

Well anyway, theres a few more comments for ya

[At_the_Wellspring]

Wow, that was long... and I'm s'posed to be working on an assignment... oops!

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Dressing in modesty for example is created in order to prevent rape,

So that means it's my responsibility to keep from getting raped? What about the responsibility of the man not to harm another person? How am I responsible for whether or not another person chooses to commit a crime? What about the responsibility of society to teach boys and young men that that is an unacceptable way of treating others?
By that logic, if I get killed and robbed, it's my responsibility - I shouldn't have been wearing those fancy sneakers.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Similarly why are homosexuals considered evil in Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism? The truth is homosexuality is not a wrong as long as it does not become so open that is considered equal to a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not evil, and God/Nature doesn't care less if someone is gay, but God does not want homosexuality be equated to a union between a man and a woman because it clearly is not the same thing!

I gather from this that you don't disapprove of homosexuality and homosexuals, correct? Well then, if my partner and I both "specialize in homemaking," as you put it, who then will "specialize" in providing for us? Or do you suggest that we find some gay male couple and talk them into providing for us while we clean their house?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Arthra, the evidence is simple - Baha'i is a religion that has the highest positions of authority reserved only for men. That makes it something of a patriarchal religion.

You can argue about the UHJ fulfilling the will of Baha'u'llah, but if the system set up is patriarchal, then that is what it is.

Any patriarchal religion can draw on a list of venerated list of women contributors - but that does not mean they are egalitarian or offer actual practical equality.

EDIT: Here's a selection of definitions for "patriarchal":

I have no wish to be seen as "promoting" anything. I am only attempting to explicate a bit what Baha`i's obedient to the authority of the faith understand.

*********************
The effect is that women are not allowed to be elected to the House, and this gives at least the substantive appearance that this policy is "patriarchal". That cannot be escaped.

It is however, a nuance, rather than a ruling principle. Its based on two things ultimately. Baha`u'llah says that a House of Justice is to have "nine believers" (believers to the number of Baha). This includes Local Houses of Justice (Local Spiritual Assemblies, National Spiritual Assemblies) - and "believers" is a non-gender based term.
Baha`u'llah in the Aqwdas and its attendant tablets says the Universal Houseof Justice is to consist of nine "men" ( a gender based term). Baha`u'llah is confirmed by Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi were the only appointed "interpreters" of Baha`u'llah's and the Bab's Writings. "Interpretation" is meant here as taking the words of the Messengers and saying what they mean for the body of the believers as a whole.

Shoghi Effendi passed away without appointing a Guardian. There was no one to appoint, since a Guardian had to be of the lineage of Baha`u'llah. Shoghi Effendi was the only descendant of both Baha`u'llah and (collateral) descendant of the Bab to remain faithful to the cause. So for the first time the Faith had to function without a living, authoritative interpreter.

The authority rested in the Assembled Hands of the Cause of God. There were 27 Hands of the Cause living at that time in 1957 when the Guardian succumbed to heart failure as the result of a virulent strain of flu.

Of those Hands were ten women and 17 men. One of the women was the widow of Shoghi Effendi. The Hands residing in the Holy Land went through Shoghi Effendi's papers looking for an indication of his wishes, there was none. ALL the Hands signed a declaration to that effect (including the defector - to -be, Mason Remey).

The Hands elected nine of their number to reside in the Holy Land and see through Shoghi Effendi's plan to elect the first House of Justice by the centenary of Baha`u'llah's declaration in 1863. ALL the Hands signed off on this by joint declaration.

In the course of events the Hands with the assistance of the scholars of the Archives went through the sacred text of the Faith to see what this entailed.
They decided to honor Shoghi Effendi's plan to teach extensively and see to doubling or tripling the number of National Spiritual Assemblies by the anniversary in 1963, and using these National Spiritual Assemblies to directly elect the House. In the Faith's elections there are no nominations, no campaigning, and no such thing as a "constituentcy".

The Hands by joint declaration decided that the text was clear about "men" to the number of Baha. Therefore the women amongst the Hands were not eligible to serve. A short time later, the Hands decided that the International Bahai Council to be appointed in 1962 would not have any Hands of the Cause on it, and that the Hands of the Cause would not be eligible to serve on the House of Justice. Mason Remey reluctantly signed the first, and refused to sign the second - this triggered his claim to be the second guardian - but that's a whole other story.

The effect was that the Hands of the Cause who were in firm control of the faith, selflessly removed themselves from consideration for service on the House of Justice. They gave up their authority to the House, left in the hands of the House of Justice the ultimate decision regarding women serving on the House and whether or not a new guardian could be appointed.

For six months the House deliberated on both topics and concluded that the Writings did not allow for women to serve on the House, and there was no Guardian to appoint.

In this they upheld the interpretations of Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi and acknowledged that they had no authority whatsoever to "interpret" the Writings because Baha`u'llah intended them only to rule on things NOT covered in the sacred text. In other words the only authoritative interpretation in the faith are the written interpretations of the Center of the Covenant and the Guardian of the Cause. Neither the House nor the appointed Hands had any authot\rity to interpret.

Is this an equivocation? Does the House indeed interpret? I say not. Others may say as they will.

It is unfortunate that the appearance of patriarchal authority masks the essence of the faith from some who investigate it. An individual's investigation can be ruled by naught but the individual. No Baha`i has a right to say anything about an individual's decision in that regard.

The last House of Justice was elected by the participation almost 200 National Spiritual Assemblies. On the NSA of the Baha`i's of the United States, five of those voting members were women. I see no gender bias in that. In places around the world the concept of electing women to a governing body is very strange, yet local Baha`i's manage to do just that all the time - every year.



That speaks volumes to me, but that is the result of my own personal investigation of the issue, please feel free to make your own.
********************************

Main Entry: pa·tri·ar·chy
Pronunciation: -"är-kE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy

""Bahá'í marriage is the commitment of the two parties one to the other, and their mutual attachment of mind and heart. Each must, however, exercise the utmost care to become thoroughly acquainted with the character of the other, that the binding covenant between them may be a tie that will endure forever. Their purpose must be this: to become loving companions and companions and comrades and at one with each other for time and eternity.... "The true marriage of Bahá'ís is this, that 'husband and wife should be united both physically and spiritually, that they may ever improve the spiritual life of each other, and may enjoy everlasting unity throughout all the worlds of God. This is Bahá'í marriage."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 368)

I think the Webster's description of patriarchal to describe our relationship would reduce her to laughter.

Regards,
Scott

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by At_the_Wellspring

Hi Silverbackman. Thanks for your first post, I understand what you are trying to say, but there are still a few points on which I have to disagree.

Firstly, I am definitely not saying there is anything wrong with wanting to be a homemaker and mother - as I said, I myself have a very strong urge to be a mother and to care and nurture my children myself rather than leave them in the hands of a nanny while I work. In some ways I understand what you are saying when the role of strong career woman is praised higher than being 'just' a homemaker these days. I disagree with that.

I agree with having choice. What I don't agree with is when someone doesn't have a choice to make those choices. This could be because of legal restrictions (such as you are saying), or it could be from prejudice, social or family expectation and pressure. This can be very subtle, and so it could be said that it no longer exists. Yet it very much does.



I agree with you in that nature is very much who we are - so many things can all be linked back to our basic hunter/ gatherer instincts. BUT if nature is indicating to us how we should be living, isn't it about now at this point in time that we are beginning to over-populate our earth, so that we are rapidly running out of resources? While much of the 3rd world still has a rapidly increasing population, doesn't it make sense that in other parts of the world the population growth is diminishing, that women now have alternatives to a career as a mother? Biology ensures the continuation of the species - correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that we are in danger of dying out. In fact it would do our world some good to reduce our population growth.


I see the beauty in a partnership providing for one another, and I am not wanting to diminish the role that women have provided in home-making, mothering and nurturing their families over the past centuries. But as you say, things have changed, we have become more 'specialised', becoming more efficient etc. So can't we begin to recognise and value the diversity of men and women rather than retaining the narrow view that there are only two, distinct types of human beings - men and women.

While this is mostly obviously true (visually), physically, even science these days, is showing that there is not necessarily such a defining line between us. Women also have testosterone, at varying levels. If one woman has a higher level of testosterone it may be that one 'masculine' quality is more evident in her. For example, she is able to understand 3 dimensional spaces more comprehensively that the 'average' women. So she may recognise this strength and go on to become an aviation engineer. In true equality, she should come across no barriers/ prejudice (whether legal or simply subtle) in acheiving that goal.

I am not rejecting the fact that we can make generalisations about characteristics of men and women. All I am saying is that traditionally we have expected men and women to act in that way, within that mold. I'm sure along the way 'behind the scenes' not everyone fitted to that outward mold - perhaps the occasional woman in the family was more 'together' 'organised' and a 'leader' than her husband, perhaps the occasional father was kinder and more empathic/ nurturing to his children than his wife..? (despite outward appearances)

Anyone who typically fell outside of the expectation of what men and women have been harassed. Men who were too feminine/ weak/ sensitive/ gay not being considered 'manly' enough. Women in leadership being hassled for being too masculine, too dominating.



I wouldn't claim that the media is that strong, personally. Perhaps in the last few years or in the earlier feminist movement (though I'm no expert). Perhaps media and liberation - the ability to have a career, to be a leader which was currently so supressed, was reason for celebration? Also, I think sometimes it is necessary to have a bit of discontentment at inequality in order to raise awareness of an issue and to bring about change. Obviously different places and cultures need to modernise in their own way (for example France needed a revolution, England didn't, to bring power to the people - some places may only progress with disharmony others might change more slowly over time).

More recently, though, I have seen more evidence that we have relaxed a little, and that science is finding some basic differences between men and women (monitoring reactions in the brain etc, levels of testosterone). It seems that we are realising that there are differences, but that there are always variations. We need to accept that there are all kinds of variations, and therefore not have expectations. We need to accept that a woman might make as equally a brilliant boss or leader or construction project manager or engineer as a man. We also need to recognise that men can make brilliant stay-at-home-dads, nurses, teachers etc. I'm not saying that we should aim for a 50-50 balance in any particular job, as I agree that nature puts us generally into the category of man / woman and with that comes particular attributes that may lead to particular careers etc.

When the expectation remains that a womans place really is ideally in the home (not that there is anything wrong with being a homemaker/ mother) then it can be very difficult for someone who does not fit that mold to feel 'normal' or 'acepted'.



Homemaking and mothering needs to be a choice not an expectation. When it is expected to go to university, find a husband and become a homemaker, then anyone who falls outside of this is considered slightly abnormal, or is not fully catered for in society, may feel pressure or disappointment from family/ friends/ self.. etc

I agree that we need to recognise the importance of and value of motherhood. Perhaps we need to relax a bit and re-embrace motherhood as a valid career option. But it still needs to be a free and liberal choice - this is what I would predict is not completely apparent in some strongly traditional societies where the pressure of expectation can be huge. And I imagine if you were to truthfully survey a portion of Japanese women, I would say they do not necessarily feel as ideally free in choice as you may believe they are.




I guess my definition of equality is different. I believe equality must first come from the law, then with freedom from prejudice/ racism/ sexism (now there are laws to deal with those offenses, though they still exist in subtle ways), then there is freedom from expectation - with the ability to be completely ones-self and make completely ones own choices without outside influence/ domination/ expectation swaying your choice.



We also need to allow fathers to be loving and nurturing to their children, not only in the monetary sense of being the 'breadwinner', but also in the sense of allowing them to spend time with their family. I think its wonderfull that fathers as well as mothers here can now take a significant amount of paid leave around the time that their child is born to be with and enjoy their family.



I think it is a beautiful thing when both the mother and father truly share parenting, both contributing to the finances and time spent with the children. This is how I personally would like my (future) family to be - where I can continue to work and engage my mind whether only 10 or 20 or 30 hours a week (again, not to say that mothering is not valid use of time and mind...) and where my partner/ husband can also share looking after the children and also contributing finances. I find this a beautiful thing. (though again I'm not saying it is a choice that everyone will want to make)

I do not think that parents sharing the child-care/ financing is 'doing the same thing' and therefore inefficient. For a start, both should be equally capable at each - we already know that women are equally as intelligent as men and can therefore survive in the workforce earning money. I also know that some of my male friends/ acquaintences are far better cooks than some of my female friends. And anyway, the thing I consider of most importance is not the tasks to be done, but the time spent with the family. And there can never be 'wastage' or 'inefficiency' in that. Just because I have one friend doesn't mean I don't need another. One has the patience to listen to my long stories, one I can laugh and joke around with, another i can debate the meaning of life with.

Well anyway, theres a few more comments for ya

Hello Again At_the_Wellspring

I'm glad you have the opinion that it is better for a mother to raise the children rather than some nanny. The truth is though in the West today does have a lot of propaganda suggesting that it is better for women to leave their kids and work full-time in a career and a nanny could provide the same care. That is hogwash IMHO, no other person in the world can show as much love as a mother can. There is a big difference when a mother raises their own kids as opposed to some lady who has no biological ties to the child, only money ties if you really look at it.

I think in most countries in the world women have a choice to do what they want legally, except for a few radical Muslim countries. I do agree that parents should pressure their kids to do anything they don't want to but keep in mind they do have the right to do so. However as an adult it is up the woman to make the decision. Parents have no say to what their kids want to do, that is how it is in Nature and it applies to human beings as well.

I don't think we have to follow Nature literally, but at least follow the outline. I do not believe the purpose of motherhood is to have many kids. That is up to the mother and father how many kids they have, and I discourage too many kids. I believe the most important role of motherhood, whether you have 2 kids or 10 kids is raising the kids. Kids need to be raised to be good kids and having a fulltime mother helps a lot. A lot of the kids in prison today in any Western country had a mother who did not spend anytime with their kids and more on their career. Having a career is fine but a mother's number one role in life is motherhood, because kids are the future of the world and need to be brought up with love by their own mother. Fatherhood is equally as important, so where does this put the father.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a mother should be the sole parent of their children and the father does not get to have any say in anything. I encourage fathers to spend as much time with their kids, they after all can teach the children some things the mother could not. In fact 90% of criminals in jail grew up without a father believe it or not, so fatherhood is very important.

I'm not saying all people fall into the rigid men and women category. There are defiantly people who are different, and because there are a few different people the government should not force men to be men and women to be women. However these people who are different are minorities, so the minority point of view should not be promoted more than the majority point of view. All people should have tolerance for any type of lifestyle, if a woman wants to become a world class boxer or wealthy business woman let them go right ahead. If a man wants to become a nurse or full-time homemaker let them. However as we know these ar