Are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism “male-Chauvinist” Institutions?
Essay Preview: Are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism “male-Chauvinist” Institutions?
Report this essay
Introduction
Are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism “male-chauvinist” institutions (Mathieu P. 75)? In this paper I will attempt to prove that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are not “male-chauvinist” institutions, but rather have hierarchy in place that is based on logic and tradition. Firstly, I intend to show that the roles of men and women in the above-mentioned religions follow natural tendencies of both genders. Secondly, I intend to show that Mathieus argument that both men and women are equally suited to fulfill all societal roles is unrealistically optimistic. Finally, I will try to show how deviation from a gender-biased society can have alarming results.
What is Mathieus view on gender in society and religion?
Mathieu (2000) states that she is “not concerned with all unfair standards, just one: gender (P.75).” She writes, “If positions are allocated according to gender, then no female – regardless of her talents, her education, her aspirations – may perform those tasks assigned to males (P.75).” She clearly states that she feels that the three major world religions knowingly suppress females for the single purpose of advancing the males social status. She also believes that males used their religion to “brainwash” females into accepting the theory of male superiority as fact (P. 77).
Mathieu also feels that biological differences between males and females, such as their reproductive organs, have very little influence on how they operate in the world. She says that the influences of our environment play a much larger role in influencing our behavior than the genes that we are born with. According to her, it is clear that anatomy does not form our destiny, but that our culture forms our gender roles in society.
The roles of men and women in the above-mentioned religions follow natural tendencies of both genders.
Men are typically hunters and gatherers. Women are typically nurturers. Of course, there are exceptions to just about every rule. We must first agree that we are arguing a general point that is to say that the points I will be arguing are not universally true; to assume so would be presumptuous. Going back to a time when there was no baby formula available from the local pharmacy or grocery, how well suited would a man be to rear an infant while his wife went off to hunt or harvest the crops? From a logical standpoint, it is easy to see why women have been “brainwashed” into thinking that they are suited only for certain types of jobs. From conception, the womans body is designed to shelter and otherwise accommodate her baby; their hips are wider than a comparably sized males hips. Though it has been argued that, given enough time, a males mammary glands could become active, it would probably take longer than the baby could survive while waiting for this phenomenon to occur. The female body, on the other hand, is ready to feed an infant even before it is born. The physical size of a womans breast also lends itself to feeding an infant from a somewhat reclined position as opposed to a male breast, which would either have to cater to the babys position (putting the male in an uncomfortable position) or put the baby in an awkward position for feeding.
Another compelling argument is that men cannot become pregnant. Moreover, God has equipped (generally speaking, of course) women with a higher threshold for pain (a great attribute for facilitating live birth) rather than with physical strength that is imparted to most men. Because of these differences, the roles of men and women have naturally developed and over time have become what may appear to be environmental, but are actually natural tendencies. Just because one may not feel comfortable with the fact that men and women are without a doubt built to perform different tasks and have different abilities, does not make these things untrue. To say that cultural conditioning is the major ingredient in developing human roles in society is to say that the way humans have genetically developed over time means nothing. It also says that human intelligence has not naturally increased, but it is just something we picked up from the people around us. The obvious physical differences between present day man and cavemen, I feel, clearly shows that the developments of our genes over time have played a large part in our roles on this earth.
The argument that both men and women are equally suited to fulfill all societal roles is unrealistically optimistic.
Mathieu states, “If positions are allocated according to gender, then no female – regardless of her talents, her education, her aspirations – may perform those tasks assigned to males (P.75).” But to be fair, then men would not be able to do any of the so-called womens jobs, such as being a teacher, nurse, secretary, or even a stay-at-home mother. From my experiences, I feel that most men do not want to do these things. Not to say that there are not men that want to have these jobs, because there are. Men are just naturally better at other jobs and would not want to stay at home, simply because they are happier doing other things. The last time I checked, most men would panic at the thought of being a kindergarten teacher, implying that they would be in charge of twenty five-year-old children at one time.
There are many roles in todays work force that require skills that women simply do not have. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, and I am of course speaking generally. For example, there are jobs in the military, such as infantry, that require the person in that position to not let emotion influence their actions in order to complete the tasks required. In most cases the women whom have tried to carry out such tasks were not able to do so because they were not able to separate their emotions from their jobs. This all goes back to the fact that women are just naturally nurturing and are not as capable as men are to fulfill positions requiring this type of work.
To focus on gender alone when assigning jobs is not realistic. When Mathieu says she is not concerned with all unfair standards, but just gender (P. 75), she is taking no other factors into account. Therefore, her argument can never be complete. If I were to use the argument, that because I come from a divorced