Are religions unfair to women?

I find it very hard to imagine how anyone might argue that the major world religions are and have been fair to women and treat them equally and reasonably.

Religion and culture are inextricably linked we know, but the basic tendency of religion to be male-led and for women to be secondary is widespread in religious doctrine and practice. Can there be any dispute about that? - it is there for all to see.

I think you have confirmed the point I was making! Cultural, not religious practices.

But individuals still cling to the cultural shaping of their religions. Eating fish on Friday, which, of course, is not fasting, applies in some Christian cultures but not in others. Some women wear a niqab because they regard it as part of their religious identity while others don't although both are Moslems.

I would argue that the 'world religions' are now so widespread that any narrow cultural definition is meaningless. I don't think eating fish on Fridays is a good example of your point, either, since it is quite obviously a religious rather than a cultural requirement - and in any case, fasting and abstinence, of which it is an example, are so common to all major religions, they can only be defined as being culturally human.

I don't think it is really possible to separate religion from cultural practice or vice versa as religion is itself man made. By that I mean religious practice rather than the simplicity of having faith. The so-called Holy Books are open to interpretation. Moreover some people believe them to be literally the word of whichever god manifested through one or more men - usually literally male(s). Most religions are hierarchical and those at the top of the tree are also mainly men. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that a particular practice, say, covering the female head, seating men and women in different sections of the place of worship, eating fish on Fridays, is cultural rather than religious because the two are so closely intertwined.

Phew! - glad you kept out of that one!

I was engaged to an iranian before the coup, and called it off when his mother came over to prepare me for the life ahead. She was an armenian and had had a fairly independent life before marriage, and still resented not being allowed to drive and various other 'little' things that annoyed her. She was a widow but still had to defer to her husband's family's wishes, even to getting her brother in law to sign papers so that she could leave the country. On the surface life was very modern, heads uncovered, western clothes, people drinking alcohol albeit quietly. Even the girls were being sent to british boarding schools.

Then came the coup, only a few years later. Friends I had made were recalled by the government, no longer to be contaminated by westerners, I never heard from them again. Ex-fiance was back by then, I was so worried for him but so relieved that I hadn't gone. I heard about ten years later that his father had not survived the upheaval. When you are young and have lived a very free life over here, albeit being aware of being somehow 'not quite as good as a boy', you have no idea that some of the strange but colourful customs that you see are a real slight to women - such as having to cook a meal, serve the men first and eat after them. Just because some male thousands of years ago decided that it would be a good idea.

In effect, I realised in the nick of time that I would be a mere possession, and could be disposed of in the space of time it took to say 'I divorce thee' three times. That was what I was told every time I did something my fiance didn't quite approve of. I had such a narrow escape.

I didn't bring them in, JO8, they were already in the thread. Someone mentioned grand-daughters and you said you only had grandsons so it was not relevant. I asked whether grandsons were therefore fair game for unpleasant practices.

Clearly it does bother you a great deal to think of them in the same context as these atrocities.
If someone made light of something that damaged them, it would strike at your heart which was my point

Every child is someone's daughter or son, grandson or grand-daughter, unless they have been orphaned and have no-one to care about them.

If you say something that gets people upset, they will respond - as you respond when anyone else gets you upset.

Condemned out of your own fingertips J08

You are either deliberately annoying people for whom this issue is important (clearly showing you do not give a donkey's fart for anyone unless they are just like you) or you are stupidly insensitive. #betshe'lltellmedifferent

And GRANSNET Delete What you like. Do not email me.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Elegran - it is beyond belief that you can bring my grandchildren into it in that way. I think you are truly despicable for saying that.

No sodding flippancy was intended! You try typing on a Kindle Fire while you're watching telly and gransnetting at the same time.These things come out of the blue. But people like you do have the empathy needed to understand that kind of thing.

Btw I'm only doing this cos it's raining and we can't get out. Don't give a donkey's fart about any of you narrow minded, obsessive lot.

To be fair I don't think J08 was saying FGM was OK!

She just does not appear able to admit, or apologise, that she made a bad choice of words that sounded as if she was trivialising the process and by doing so upset some people.

Would you be OK with your boys strapped down unanaesthetised and circumcised with a unsterilised knife, then? And having the operation repeated so that they could have sex?

Culture or religion are irrelevant here. It is an abhorrent practice which we should be uniting to stamp out, not argifying about what causes it.

This is really not about you jo8 but about the many damaged and hurt women.

And as for mentioning my grandchildren, that is totally ridiculous. Talk about trying to play on people's emotions.

And, anyway, they're boys.

Words define practices. If you call something by a name that minimises it, you also minimise the practice.

Would you call a prolonged assault with an offensive instrument a little disagreement?

This is more than a little snip at the tip of the clitoris - and imagining even that makes the toes curl. It is more than a circumcision by a surgeon. It is deep and mutilating butchery on a frightened girl, carried out against her will and under restraint. When she then reaches an age for sexual intercourse, she must undergo more cutting to make it possible, and may never enjoy intercourse as a result. Then she will bear a child. . .

Good grief, anyone who cannot speak of this without flippancy would be better to say nothing at all, and those who think that it is being "nasty and spiteful" to tell them so are being just as insensitive.

Btw, thank you to Ana, Sel, Nonu, and Dorset, for being normal reasonable human beings. #thankgodtherearesomeonhere

The important thing is to campaign strongly to stop the brutality towards women: FGM/Domestic violence/forced marriage/rape etc. These are serious issues that do not lend themselves well to light-heartedness or apparent flippancy.

In that context the feelings and 'playground' alliances of posters on a forum are insignificant.

Ok! I should have said "cutting clitorises". Wow! Doesn't that make a hell of a lot of difference!

Who the fuck knew this subject was going to appear out of the blue on a discussion about religion?! #onlyongransnet

The Christian religion (C of E and 'low churches' arms) is not unfair to women. I can't see how it is anyway.

Because I've never effing heard it called FGM. I've heard about it and I know it's barbaric but, no, apart from listening to items on Woman's Hour and the like, it has not been uppermost in my mind. Slap my sodding wrist for that.

dorset This isn't about "bashing up" j08 or being "nasty and spiteful". It's about pointing out that the way we use language is important.

I was discussing this matter with my husband and asking him if he thought it was an over reaction for some gransnetters to dislike the term "clit snipping". He didn't think it was an over reaction, and asked whether gransnetters would think it appropriate for a man, in a public forum (in a newspaper, on TV, etc.), to describe FGM in this way.

I also wondered, if such a disgusting procedure had been carried out on one of our own grandchildren whether we would describe it in such a way.

It's not about being erudite - why not just refer to it, as others had, as FGM?