I don't agree that "separate can be equal." This
we learned from the civil rights movement. The idea might be there, to make
everything completely symmetrical. Yet, one of the entrances to the temple
worship area has got to be closer to the parking lot, to give just one example
of how the real world complicates even simple ideas. If you let the men walk a
shorter distance from their cars, they are "privileged." If you allow
women to walk the shorter distance, they are "the weaker sex."
I appreciate that Buddhist thought demands that distractions
be kept to a minimum, and I see how clothing and body chemistry might affect
that. However, other concepts also provide strong distraction, and are not considered
or given any weight, much less equal weight.
In group counseling of addicted children and their families,
the individuals sitting in the circle are instructed not to sit next to a
family member, so they can focus on their own situation and their own recovery.
They are not instructed to not sit next to a member of the circle who might
distract them because of their gender, sexual orientation, clothing, or history
of friendship or drug use, though all of those also might be considered
relevant. The family ties are thought to be most distracting to an individual's
journey to health and well-being.
As I sat in the Buddhist worship area, apart from the men,
my anger at realizing that I am seen as a person whose most important
attributes to consider are my body parts, which might be
"distracting" to the majority of men, who are heterosexual, was not
so easy to set aside, making my experience of the practice of this religion
just another low point in my search for meaning in this existence we call life.
The separation by genitalia also totally ignores sexual
attraction between those of the same sex. The practice is inherently
discriminatory because it does not recognize those whose sexual orientation
differs from the majority. This practice denies these persons' sexual feelings
or negates the importance of those feelings. And you can't just put the gay men
in with the women, as I myself would find the near presence of an attractive
man to be a distraction, even if I knew the attraction was not mutual. There is
no way to separate a group of people so that no one will be sitting next to
someone they are sexually attracted to. Some people are attracted to everyone.
For this reason alone, they should not separate people by sexual organs, so
they won't discriminate against someone by ignoring their sexual preference.
Feeling marginalized because of one's sexual orientation diminishes the worship
experience before it begins. Knowing that the religion encourages heterosexual
preference feels like a slap in the face to members who are not heterosexual.
Knowing that the lesbian sitting next to me is expected to hide her attraction
to me, in the name of "fitting in," made me, a heterosexual, feel
sorry for her and angry at a religion who would deny her the identity she was
born with. We were not on equal footing if, within the worship area, I was free
from distraction and she was purposefully made to feel her attraction was not
normal and was not accounted for. She was not free to sit with the men, who
would not be distracting to her, because she had body parts that would be
attractive to men (but only the heterosexual ones).
The Catholic Church houses men and women, the brothers and
sisters, separately, which makes it convenient to deny women the opportunity
for engaging "the old boy network" to find out how things really run,
politically, within the church. It is no different in public schools. No matter
how "equal" a school that has only black students may seem to be, when
compared to the school that only admits whites, the experience of the students
is diminished due to a lack of interaction between the students of different
races.
The Buddhist religion does the same thing.
When the men and the women sit apart during meals, the
conversations that occur, on each side, do not reach all ears. Okay, I know
that, even during meals, one's thoughts are expected to remain lofty.
But the thought that these separations are "good"
continues, outside of the worship and food areas. Men and women are encouraged
by their religious leaders to always be "good," to always be
"holy," even after they leave the weekly service, and it is likely
that this would include, even if not spoken aloud, a continued encouragement to
not mingle with the opposite sex, because it might "be distracting"
or "lead to sin." In the Catholic church, at the end of mass, the
parishioners are instructed to "go and sin no more" and to
"avoid the near occasion of sin."
In my experience with the Buddhist temple, as we left, we
were not instructed to "go ahead and mingle freely with the opposite
sex," "go about your business as usual," or anything that hinted
that the experience of separation of the sexes was meant to be temporary and
limited only to the worship services.
"Separate" within the walls of a religious
building means they are preaching that "separate" is equated with
"good." Then, beyond those doors, the continuation of being a
"good" person means continuing to avoid "temptation." This
leads to women being excluded from the old boy network, the power structure,
and information they would find helpful in many ways, but which is denied to
them simply by way of physical separation from men during important
conversations.
This is not fair.
I was instructed by the Buddhists that this realization,
that "unfair" is part of life, is important, so that we can set it
aside, along with all the other unpleasant thoughts we might have, and enjoy
the freedom from feeling connected to worldly things and ideas, any of which
may lead to pain.
That is like saying, if you recognize that your leg is
broken and it hurts, simply reflect on the fact that life includes things like
broken legs, and when you let go of your feeling that you think it is important
for you, personally, to be free of things that hurt, you will feel joyful. This
is not the same thing as saying, let's fix your broken leg and see if that
makes you feel a little better, even though the rest of life might be unfair
and other things might hurt your feelings.
Separating men and women in the religious environment is
more like making sure everyone has a broken leg, so they know what pain is,
when the religious leader talks about letting go of painful attachments and
being joyful. Heterosexual men are pained on being kept apart from sexy women,
homosexuals are pained on having their attractions ignored and in having to
keep them hidden, women are pained on being excluded from the real world of
power.
My guess is that the Buddhists feel that the joy of enlightenment
is an end which is worth enduring the institutionalized pain.
