Talk:Religious feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Women as theological figures[edit]

Contributions to Women as theological figures welcome.

Actually, in the Bible, it says for wives to submit to their husbands. I'm all for the Bible, but I would want an equal balance relationship with my wife. --66.218.13.96


In respose to this comment, the Bible has been translated incorrectly in order to manipulate the masses in believing that women must submit to men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.77.193 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, isn't it noted that Lilith, Adams first partner, was sent to he dead sea where she procreated with demons after asking for equality with Adam? Or rather saying that she didn't want to lie beneath him, to be more correct. 203.100.220.104 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Islam[edit]

"Nevertheless, feminism has so profoundly influenced Islam, especially among Western Muslims, that Muslims as a whole do not realize Islam was ever not feminist"

Does anyone else think this needs a rewrite? I'm by no means an expert on Islam or Feminism, but Feminism has come about in modern times, while Islam has been around since the middle ages. How on earth does something so recent 'profoundly influence' Islam to a degree where people don't realize it's been influenced? It feels a lot like Islamic propoganda, and feels like someone's twisiting the meaning of 'feminism' Nato 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC) \

NPOV tag[edit]

I added this tag because the article in its present form appears to violate WP:NPOV. The article doesn't appear to contain a single piece of criticism or other information from an opposing POV, and appears to be written in an essentially triumphalist tone. The hope is for a neutral, enclopedic exposition of the subject fairly presenting the views of both proponents and critics and letting readers decide for themselvs. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Why is this called "religious feminism" and not "feminist theology"? I've never heard the term "religious feminism". It seems to imply that there is some difference between feminists and people who hold religious beliefs. This is just not so. It isn't "religious" it is a form of theology and is known as "feminist theology". The title should reflect this per WP:Name. Phyesalis (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Feminism is expressed primarily through theology in some cases in some religions, but not in others. Some religions emphasize theology as critical to being religious, but theology is not as important an aspect in other religions. The idea was to provide a somewhat broader topic that would include a broader group. Feminist theology represents a perfectly appropriate subtopic that covers much but not all of the subject. In Judaism, for example, Blu Greenberg represents an example of a religious feminist whose religious feminism is not primarily theologically based. See also Tamar Ross. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, a polite and well-reasoned explanation (it's been a rough WP day). Great, sounds good to me. Thanks for helping me see it in a new perspective. Phyesalis (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi everyone,

Shirahadasha's excellent explanation notwithstanding, I’d like to remove the redirect to this article and copy the contents to Feminist Theology, for the following reasons:

1. The first two words of the article are “Feminist theology”, implying that the original author was thinking of feminist theology, not religious feminism.

2. In common parlance, “religious” frequently means “fanatical” – so the title of this article could have a pejorative connotation; viz, “Fanatical Feminism”.

3. “Religious Feminism” does not exist as a Library of Congress subject; “Feminist Theology” does.

4. Setting aside colloquial connotations of the word “religious”, the terms “Religious Feminism” and “Feminist Theology” mean two very different things: “Religious Feminism” seems to indicate something like scholarship in women’s studies or gender studies that is focused on religion, whereas “Feminist Theology” is theology through a feminist hermeneutic. “Religious Feminists” might include such scholars as Mieke Bal, Minoo Moallem, and perhaps even Simone de Beauvoir, although the term would quite likely be rejected by such scholars. Theologians who use a feminist hermeneutic would include: Rosemary Radford Ruether, Catherine Keller, Carter Heyward, and Maria Pilar Aquino.

So if people feel that there is a need for an article for Religious Feminism, it should be a separate article.

5. Many theologians are not necessarily religious—a few are even atheists—and would take offense at being lumped under a religious rubric.

6. Feminist Theology is actively studied at many seminaries, whereas Religious Feminism would most likely be studied in the Women’s Studies department of a university, if it is recognized at all.

7. Blu Greenberg (see Shirahadasha’s comments above) is referenced in the entry for Jewish Feminist Theology in the Women’s Studies Encyclopedia, and she is listed under Theology on www.myjewishlearning.com, so I think it may be a bit of a stretch to say that she doesn’t do theology.

I think that if neither Religious feminism nor Feminist Theology redirect, you will probably observe a decline in the number of edits to Religious feminism and an increase in the number of edits to Feminist Theology. I don't know if Wikipedia has a method for tracking views of articles, but it would be interesting to compare these as well.

Webbbbbbber (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What dispute?[edit]

The article is tagged for December but there is no discussion of what's being disputed. If there is no discussion, the tag should be removed. Phyesalis (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The date was added to the POV tag by a bot. It was really added in June 2007 by Shirahadasha who discusses why above. I've changed the date to avoid confusion. Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Great - thanks. Maybe we could get more concrete criticisms? Not that I doubt the assessment, but specifics would give other editors a head's up as to where to focus their efforts. --Phyesalis (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)