Talk:Gender and religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sex differences in religion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion by User:Grutness. Following a clean-up by User:Michaelas10, it was withdrawn. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here was the discussion. Sr13 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

emphasis[edit]

This article seems to focus slightly too much on Christian perspectives over others. A small amount of cleanup could fix this. --Alynna 14:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is barely more than a stub. There are literally two sentences about Christianity. The rest is generic, Judaism, or feminist extremes. What the article needs is more of everything. If you are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with Christian views, by all means extend the other areas. If you are interested in Women and religion, the glaring omission, imo, is the Qur'an, which has a whole sura on women.
From a neutral, world-wide, verifiable perspective, celebate, male-only priesthoods in many traditions, and temple prostitution strike me as the most significant elements of Gender and religion taken across cultures and over recorded history. Christianity is actually somewhat of an exception from that perspective, because of the high regard it has always accorded women. Some have argued that the rise of feminism is actually due to historical consequences of freedoms promoted by the Protestant Reformation, it would be interesting to write up that POV.
I'm sure I'm showing an editorial bias here, I invariably look for what is omitted in articles. Only once they approach 50kB do I think about finding an objective basis for balancing content with regard to value in presenting an integrated picture.
Please contribute freely on whatever motivates you most. You shouldn't find me any trouble, I'm not fussy about language use and even text that's factually wrong, I normally ammend by only by adding the sources that contradict it. Readers love it when one source shows another to be wrong. The only thing I terminate on sight is unsourced claims about what various groups say, when I know this is not what they say. I replace such text with the highest quality source for the group's opinion that's available online.
There's a lot more out there on this subject than a whole faculty could possibly know, and a lot more than 50kB worth. I'm looking forward to being educated. ;) Alastair Haines 15:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, sorry Alynna, I rattle my sword a bit on some pages (maybe a lot). I can stand by what I've said, but I wouldn't say it this way to you. Anonymous media have interesting side-effects. Anyway, to Alynna sorry, to others ... <rattles sabre> again. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material[edit]

I note someone removed the reference to the discussion of the Unborn Child Protection bill in the NSW parliament. If you wish to delete sourced material, please discuss this on the talk page first.

If you would like to argue that abortion is not a gender issue, I'm very happy to think that through with you, gather sources and document what we find in the article. You may very well persuade me, in which case we can work together to do the hard work of removing discussions of abortion from other gender related articles.

Perhaps it's the combination of gender with religion that means abortion is no longer relevant. That seems a little odd, but if Child Protection is a community issue, Unborn Child Protection is too, so I can see a point in that. We need to give wider coverage to the idea in a larger article and this one can simply refer to it. Please point us to where the discussion is already documented, if it doesn't yet exist, we can write it up. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

The 1st section looks very much like it, arguing for interpretations of scriptures. Peter jackson (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can select from probably a couple of thousand sources for the interpretations given. Genesis 1 has to be one of the most cited and analysed pieces of writing in history. Karl Barth had some novel twists on the verses. There are Islamic and Christian, as well as Jewish sources on these verses, some of them canonical. The significance of the Creation mandate is very much debated, especially in recent times, population explosion and all that. Henri Blocher has written a neat, accessible commentary on Genesis, called In the Beginning. There's a fair bit of feminist attention as well.
The probability of original research on Genesis 1 would have to be pretty low, POV is more what I'd be worried about were I someone unfamiliar with the material. That's why I stuck to mainly providing the grammar, which is objective, and used quantifiers for the significance.
The section is unfinished. Genesis 2, with the rib material, is where the action starts. There are half a dozen major issues that come up there. Does it contradict Genesis 1? Is it sexist? Do they have sex before or after chapter 3? The first question is happily irrelevant in this article, but the other two are definitely gender issues. Genesis 2 is the basis of patriarchy in the Christian canon (see any mainstream or feminist commentary). It is also the basis of monogamy, the sinfulness of divorce, abstinence prior to marriage. As you can imagine, it's unlikely these views are not covered in rather a lot of literature. NPOV is the thing to watch, I would think, rather than OR.
What does the text tell the reader to do so far? What does it say is true? If it says what I want it to say, it only describes language, according to standard Biblical Hebrew sourcebooks, and according to 3,000 years or so of commentary. I wish it was original, then I could publish it. ;)
I'm not sure I really understand your "arguing for interpretations of scriptures". There's no argument and no interpretation in the section, but given that the Bible was written to be clear, it's not surprising that most sections have had lakes of ink spilled over them, without leading to much diversity. There are difficult parts, and there are controversial parts; sadly, imo, the latter get far more attention. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ellen White[edit]

I note that a modern spiritual movement, with about 2 million members, is cited as the largest with a woman as founder. This may be true, however, it crossed my mind that Ellen White is considered a prophet by Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), and they number 15 million or so, with a hundred years of history. Ellen is also considered to be one of the founders of SDA. Interestingly, I suspect SDA is explicitly patriarchal, at least in traditional forms of its church government. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Judæo-Christian views" section[edit]

Background: This section has been inserted by Alastair Haines, and removed by me (Alynna Kasmira) several times. In Alastair's latest addition of the section (reverting my removal of it) he says "attempt consensus on talk page". Since he has not attempted consensus on the talk page, I must assume he wishes me to attempt consensus on the talk page.

I do not think this section belongs in this article. If detailed analysis of Hebrew in Genesis belonged anywhere, it would go in Gender and Judaism. It is far too specific for this article, which is written in summary style. --Alynna (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The text at stake is long standing and includes tweaks by various editors over a year or so. It also involves discussion recorded above on this talk page. Recently Alynna removed it without notifying any editors involved, or documenting such a major change at the talk page. The text has been removed once and restored once as the article history demonstrates.
Responding to Alynna's three points.
  1. The text clearly belongs in the article because it is the definitive summary of the canonical source for Abrahamic religions regarding gender: God creates gender on day six of Genesis 1. The Abrahamic religions are huge, and Adam, Eve and gender are proverbial.
  2. The analysis is not particularly detailed, it is a summary of the key, neutral points made in sources, providing access to them for non-specialists. Such sourced detail is the whole point of encyclopedias, as of course is being specific to the topic of the article.
  3. Finally, since Genesis 1-3 is just as frequently cited in Christianity as Judaism, it is relevant in many articles.
Gender segregation in synagogues, on the other hand, seems very specific, unsourced and, although probably true and within the broad topic of the article, has very limited application and doesn't tell the reader much about general principles of gender in religion.
But the main thing is, at this very early point in the history of this article, we need to be encouraging all reasonable attempts to address the subject (even the idiosyncratic issue of gender segregation in synagogues), especially if they are sourced. We want to be adding, not subtracting.
At some point we will have Al Qur'an's surat on Al Nissa. Perhaps we will also have some reference to the now defunct Hindu practice of suttee. Once there is sufficient information like that, it will become apparent that we probably need to keep things to a summary here, hence keeping it mainly theological, while linking to minor specific practices which will be covered in detailed articles where they are sufficiently notable.
If Alynna wishes to insist on keeping references to details out of the article, I'm willing to reluctantly go along with that and start by deleting segregation in synagogues, which as she says are better covered in Gender and Judaism. Genesis 1 and following however, are clearly core to the subject and a way into it for people who are familiar with this famous religious literature regarding gender. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm willing to accept that a summary of Genesis on gender is relevant to this article (although I still don't think detailed analysis of Hebrew is really necessary). Can we put it in the "specific religions" section, or at least further down in the article, since it does not pertain to non-Abrahamic religions?
As a sidenote, do you have any opinion on the order of sections in this article?
As far as gender segregation in synagogues, that's not a top-level section. It's a stubby beginning to a section on gender segregation in religion in general. And there is a reference. --Alynna (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Alynna, nice to hear we can agree on relevance. In my head the section is not really about the Judaeo-Christian view (despite the title I gave it). It does work to address that important and relevant matter, but the main point of it is that it discusses the creation of gender. Several religions have similar kinds of discussion of "where gender comes from", many don't have this, gender is just assumed to be reality not needing explanation.
I don't think the section needs to stay in its current form or location forever. I would imagine a step forward would be to gather sources from several religions regarding explanations of "the origin of gender", with a comment that not all religions discuss such things.
Perhaps this would mean less discussion of Genesis early in the article and more later, perhaps the reverse. However, until material that is older historically (which is quite possible), or more logically primary (which is unlikely), or representing a larger religious group (which is also unlikely) is presented, it really feels like the natural place to start.
Perhaps you and I differ in taste here: I prefer historical, theoretical and logical treatment, you (I'm guessing) prefer practical, current and ethical treatment. Both approaches are important to readers and both can be done responsibly. Not only that but both can be done in ways that assist one another, they are not necessarily in conflict.
I don't have time for it now, but the idea that feminism is largely a product of the high value protestantism, Christianity and Judaism have historically given to women is very common in the literature, though there are a few writers who argue the opposite. I would imagine giving quality sources regarding that debate would give readers something to chew on that they'd appreciate.
Katharine M Rogers is a famous early "Bible against women" writer, I'd need to source the writers who oppose her. Her view is extreme, not a consensus view and she is not a religious expert. However, I think she is an excellent, articulate writer for her perspective, that's also what you'll find secondary sources saying.
I'll stop there for now. For the time being only, until we really have something that might seem a more logical beginning, Genesis 1 has the great advantage of being well known, on topic, much commented on and thought provoking. We're not telling people "you must believe Genesis 1", we're telling people "for bad or for good" perhaps the longest standing most influential religious text on this subject says ...
I'd love to be able to agree with you about moving it, but Genesis 1 is so well known and widely cited it can't be restricted to Judaism, Judaism and Christianity or even Abrahamic religions. At the very least it has widely shaped European thought on gender, starting more than 2,000 years ago.
Additionally, I don't think listing all religions is a helpful way forward in this article, there are thousands of religions. What we need to do is consider classes of religions as far as such classifications are relevant to the topic of gender. That's far more achievable, summary and concise. I'm not going to be available for a while, but in a month or so I may be able to give a sourced idea of what I mean. In fact, once I've tidied up the Gender of God article a bit, it should become more clear.
Please feel free to add lots to the article, especially sources. As I've mentioned, if you can find KM Rogers, you'll find lots of quality academic level text written in clear English that opposes biblical thinking (especially in Genesis). I think adding material like that is a managable and lasting way forwards at the moment. But please add anything you like. I'm very open to additions. You'll only find me interfering with things that seem deletions or weaslings, even when these are offered in good faith.
Text I've seen you write Alynna, tends to be high quality (only my opinion), the only thing I'd love to see is more sources. I'm not having a go, I'm actually trying to urge more contribution from you. You're diplomatic, thoughtful and insightful. You try to be neutral. Trust yourself to get sources from a local library or google them and add them in helpfully.
Hope that's helpful, gotta go. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A section on the creation of gender is a great idea. I've reworked that section to cover the topic better - obviously it still needs more.
I'd love to see something on a religious basis for feminism here, that sounds interesting. --Alynna (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The verses from Genesis 1 currently quoted are the classic religious text in support of the gender egalitarianism component of feminism.
At a later point I intend to add the Genesis 2 and 3 verses that are offered in support of patriarchy (and as evidence of misogyny). That also will enhance the article by providing both points of view.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of secondary sources discussing these verses, but they all make the same same points. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Great, so pick your favourite of the secondary sources and cite it. --Alynna (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In six months or so ... you're the one working on the text at the moment. Just grab hold of any commentary on Genesis 1–3 you like. John Wenham, Henri Blocher, plus John Calvin, Rashi, Augustine and other older writers are my favourites. But there's no rush, there's nothing controversial about the interpretation, or rather fights among scholars in the early chapters of Gensis centre on issues other than gender. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Role of women in religion into this article[edit]

Role of women in religion has had a merge tag for months, but no discussion has taken place yet. So, here's my rationale in support of the merge: that article is currently a list of links to articles concerning women in religion. Most of those links would fit into this article. Anything about women and religion falls under "gender and religion". --Alynna (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines as above, I think we need to expand documentation of literature discussing the role of women in religion, not merge it.
I admit it's kind of difficult to discuss women in isolation from men, but it's not impossible and permits considerably more to be said along certain points of view than the broader topic of gender. For example, gender in religion could discuss the idea of female leadership in various religions (which is historically quite rare and easily expands to WP:UNDUE attention). However, there are huge numbers of historically significant woman leaders in religions, irrespective of the fact that these have typically been very much a minority.
Discussion of unfairness in history, and discussion of mis-perceptions of the importance of women within religion would still be topics for both types of article, imo.
My basic point is simply more information is better, we can always add articles as existing ones get too big. We're writing an encyclopedia, we're building it, that does involve judicious removal, however, I think we've got a lot of work ahead of us before we can really start trimming.
So, main point again, adding more on women in religion to Wikipedia seems the way forward, without that preventing adding more material of a general nature on that topic within the current article. Let's work on adding whatever we can for a while. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation myths about human gender[edit]

Please, could we work together on this section?

I see you repeatedly adding your analysis of Genesis 1 to the top and relegating everything else to "other accounts". I then have to re-merge the sections. It's annoying. Genesis 1 is one, arguably the most notable one, of the accounts where men and women have equal standing. Anything about it should go in that paragraph. It is one of many creation myths. It is one of several very well-known creation myths.

Also, the term "creation myth" is NPOV. That's why you'll find the article creation myth at that title instead of at "creation story" or "creation narrative". It's not an insult to call them myths. It's just what scholars call them.

Finally, your opinions about the article are not more important than mine. Just because you wrote the analysis of Genesis 1 a long time ago doesn't mean it has a right to be in the article. And seriously, if you can't make it fit in with the other text instead of in its own section, maybe it's too long. --Alynna (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss text not other editors. You have been edit warring without discussion for removal of sourced text. That's just not how it's done.
Cease refering to standard analysis as if it is mine. If you can't cite a contrary view you have no evidence but to assume good faith.
Finally, your opinions are not more important than the sources that have been stable in the text for something like a year.
If you have material you wish to add, that's fine. Deleting boringly standard material cannot be justified, which is why you haven't even attempted it.
Just try adding sourced material. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The article was stable without the text under discussion from August until you re-added it 2 days ago. It takes two to edit-war.
I would love to discuss the text. I have in fact tried to discuss the text with you. I thought we were getting somewhere. But then, regardless of what you say, you just keep re-adding the same thing with no regard for what else is there. When the behaviour of other editors impedes working on the article, it is worthy of discussion.
Also, people have different editing styles. Not everyone limits themselves to just adding things. Rearranging, adjusting, and yes, sometimes deleting things is a valid way to contribute to Wikipedia. The text at the bottom of this page says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.".--Alynna (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminism and religion[edit]

The Feminism and religion section has too many questioned items. Unsourced items need to be improved with additional citations or deleted. Without reliable sources, it appears to be either a synthesis or original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telpardec (talkcontribs) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Secular religious leadership[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in_religion&type=revision&diff=714116610&oldid=714113984

I didn't mean secular religious leadership, but that some religions ban females from taking non-religious leadership roles liking by CEO's or headteachers. 89.242.141.6 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is unclear if headteacher or CEO is a type of secular leadership when it is part of a religious organization. Even if you used a footnote to explain it and a citation to verifiy it, it still does need to be in the section lead. Once you have a citation maybe you can say something lower down in the section with particular examples. tahc chat 20:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I meant outside of religious organizations but members of the religion. 89.242.141.6 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That still sounds like something that would need to be verified and stated carefully. tahc chat 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved with consensus (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


Sex differences in religionGender and religion – This article was originally titled "Gender and religion", but was moved (without discussion) to "Sex differences in religion" in order to conform with all the "Sex differences in..." articles. The problem is that all the other "Sex differences in..." articles are about differences between men and women with regard to a particular topic, such as Sex differences in memory, Sex differences in schizophrenia, etc. This article has nothing to do with differences between men and women. It's about how the topic of gender is handled in various religions. The original title was much more appropriate, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: Sex differences in religion sounds like it might be about how men and women view religion differently. tahc chat 18:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gender and religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender and religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)