I attended services at one particular religious institution a couple of
times in the past. It concerned me greatly that there was still a specific
practice of separating females from males, with each sex occupying one side of
the worship hall. This continued after the service into the shared repast, when
the men lined up to be served the meal first and then the women after. Food was
available in normal portions, but only until it ran out, so if it ran out
before you were served, you were out of luck. It did not matter that they
assured me they always made sure to have an abundance of food, plenty for all
and with leftovers to give to the poor. The idea was there, that if there ever
was not enough food, the poor would starve, and then the women, and lastly the
men.
This was the practice in my husband's childhood family. However many pork chops there were at hand that
had been cooked for dinner, they were doled out, one at a time, first to those
who were male, the oldest served before the youngest, and then to those who were female, oldest to youngest. Often, there were not enough pork chops to go
around, but the meat they had was not divided evenly, as was the practice in my
own family. Those people in his family who were at the bottom of the
status ranking went without if there was not enough. My sisters-in-law report
that they often did not get a serving of the evening's protein dish, and had to
fill up on rice.
It still amazes me that in order for one to participate in a
modern organized religion, one would have to do a check of one's genitals and
act according to the traditions reserved for your particular set of body parts.
From what I understand, this has nothing to do with gender identity, it is
strictly "gentlemen parts belong on one side of the room, lady parts on the other."
If I remember correctly, I was instructed that when one is
faced with such discrimination, it is a reminder that life is not fair and that instances of discrimination are not important in the larger scheme of things, where
all such identifications with the body eventually disappear anyway. Recognizing
this and accepting it helps one to let go of earthly expectations that do not
lead to happiness anyway. Letting go of attachment
to things that do not matter leads to an inner peace, which leads to joy.
Somehow this still does not seem to me a satisfactory
answer. I would have thought that a wise leader of a new religion could have found a more
innovative way to make the same point, maybe lining up people by height, or
dividing the room according to net worth, rather than going along with the
contemporary discriminatory practice of sexism. Choosing such a traditional
method of discrimination and institutionalizing it in religious practices makes
me doubt the veracity of the retelling of the religion's story. It shakes my
faith, making me question whether any part of the story is at all meaningful. I
feel as separated from all religions which discriminate on the basis of biology as I do from my own, which labels me as
unqualified to become a leader because of the peculiar nature of my body, which is female.
I understand that, in all religions, the stories are metaphors for our life experiences and understanding our place in
the universe. But in putting women in second place, as usual, it just seems
like sexist man-made religions are made by men in power to keep
men in power, using pretense of metaphor to maintain the status quo, rather
than to provide real enlightenment on the meaning of life, which might bring true
satisfaction.
This continuity in institutionalized sexism might have been
practical when religions first came into being, useful as a method to assure peace
and social order, rather than the disorder which might have resulted if there
had been a sudden shaking up of societal expectations. However, seeing that sex
discrimination is still in practice today is seeing an anachronism
that simply feels painful.
