Are religions unfair to women?

I thought that, too...

That was Lily's example. I was thinking more Inquisition. All done by evil men in the name of religion. True, the evil would still have been there, but perhaps not accepted by normal God fearing people.

Agreed, nfk. Religons have 'normalised' evil things. When the major world religions treat women as equals with men (women bishops, anyone?) and stop feeling they should have any control over people's sex lives, and just worship their gods quietly while leaving those of us with no gods alone, then and only then will I grant that they do no harm.

Exactly.

Just been watching a wonderful programme on Verdi's life and music. When his requiem was first performed in a cathedral in Italy the women singers had to wear veils and sing behind a curtain. Hmmm! Not religion oppressing women?

Bags What would you actually like done about all the religious people in the world?

'They never used to snip clits off 300 years ago in this country'.....

'They' are still doing it in this country now - did you not watch 'Casualty' a few weeks ago?

In the middle ages, in this country, fathers and husbands had their daughters/wives welded into iron chastity belts to ensure they stayed pure while the menfolk were away sowing their wild oats. (I think this practice has died out). It has always been 'lock up your daughters', never 'castrate the rapist'. It is still the case that if a dangerous rapist/murderer is on the loose, it is WOMEN and girls who are advised to stay at home, when if all decent MEN stayed at home under curfew, the prowling, dangerous man would be easily identified.

It has been fairly convincingly proved that the chastity belt was a 19th century invention! While the men were away fighting, it was the women who ran things. As usual. The reference to FGM was in the original article. I didn't introduce it arbitrarily. Granny23 this is an imported practice which men and women of all faiths as well as secularists have denounced and are denouncing. I didn't see the programme mentioned but I have seen other programmes and have received literature which makes this point clear. Inquisition, yes, wicked. Four hundred years ago. The Killing Fields, the Gulags, the Holocaust.....during our lifetimes. I'm sure we've discussed the straw man before but it involves creating your own version of the thing you want to take issue with rather than addressing any flaws that exist in reality.

It wasn't customary practice in this country 300 years ago, Granny23, that was the point J08 and I were making.

The 'clit snipping', that is.

I know about chastity belts.

Yes, saw the Casualty. Not sure it had anything to do with Britain 300 years ago though. It was about African girls Wasn't it?

I feel that many religions usually began as reasonable ways of ordering societies but inevitably powerful people (men) used them for their own selfish purposes and twisted and 're-interpreted' the rules.

For example in the Q'ran there are strict rules about the evidence required before any punishment can take place which was wisely there to protect people from 'kangaroo' courts and vigilantes. However this aspect of the original religious writing has been conveniently forgotten by the men who mete out sharia 'justice'. Also Mohamad's strict rules about the equal treatment of wives is thought, in some circles, to be an attempt to reduce cultural polygamy rather than promote it.

Nowhere in the gospels does it say that Jesus said women could not be bishops! But the powers in the Christian church have decreed it. Jesus did not advocate killing and slaughter..in fact he seemed to condone subservience to ruling powers ( give unto Ceaser etc) but the Crusaders
(and more recently Catholics /Protestants) fought in his name.

I cannot think of any religion that challenges the view that men are in control and women are subservient. They just do it to different degrees!

Talking of religion love this picture

Looks like he is saying "what the heck is all this about?"

Or he could be just out of sync with the rest of them.

Like the Angry Birds top!

Yes, I do too.

'Snip clits' , 'clit snipping' - anybody else find this flippant use of language for FMG offensive ? For one thing, FMG is often far more than that - although that's bad enough. Young girls die as a result at worst and if not, often suffer throughout the rest if their lives. Ask any midwife who has assisted with a woman giving birth who has suffered FMG. With women who use phrases like 'clit snipping' who needs men to treat women badly?

Oh God! Here we go again.

Oh, is that the time...?

I agree with bluebell. The words "clit snipping" trivialise a vile and horrible assault.

I agree! No need to trivialise something so repugnant, degrading and painful.

Can I just say, when I posted "They never used to snip clits off 300 years ago in this country!" which obviously started all this off, I was posting from my Kindle Fire which isn't the easiest thing to type on. I assumed shortening 'clitorises' to 'clits' would be adequate. No disprespect meant. No harm SHOULD have been done, except by nit-pickers. #lookingfortrouble?

FMG has nothing to do with religion, it's a cultural practice amongst certain tribes in Eastern Africa. Islam does not call for it, not does it call for women to be covered up from head-to-toe. It asks that women AND men dress with decorum. All the ills done to women are mans' interpretation of religion for their own means.