An introduction.

I really don't go for race, sex or gender superiority & inferiority, but if I did it would seem to me that the inferior would need the head start - not the superior and that the superior would be the dominant ones - not the inferior.
 
No offence against Abdu'l-Baha here, but my hackles rise at this kind of statement ...

Let me state emphatically this is exactly the kind of thing men say when they want to put women in a manageable box, and it is sexist, if not misogynist.

What a game we play with words...

What a game we play with interpreting words and actions, especially in today's outrage culture . . . The clip here demonstrates our culture's attitude.

Roman: "I'm sorry. Excuse me. I see two sisters standing. Why are the sisters standing and the brothers sitting?"

Person 1: "If we want to sit we can ask."

Roman: "Well, you ladies got to speak up for yourselves."

Person 2: "This ain't forty years ago."

Roman: "There's no statutes and limitations on, uhm, chivalry."

Person 1: "That's gendered and sexist."

Roman: "And polite."

Person 2: "And patronizing."

Roman: "And polite."
Abdul Baha's words are (unintentionally, but effectively) being reduced to just a new cliche about women, and then slotted into the same old rationalization why the the girls can't go into the boy's treehouse.

Yet you have no objection to females being educated first. You don't describe it as sexist and patronizing. Here, @Cino, enjoy this cherry:

7b5.jpg


Here's the thing: Nowadays it is no longer a question to most of us what is wrong with the following sentence: "Women are delicate and beautiful, therefore they should not be car mechanics or engineers or leaders, leave that to men who are strong and competitive."

No-brainer, right? It's patronizing and based in cliché.

I agree.

Abdu'l-Baha reportedly said women can do non-traditional roles (such as being a mechanic, engineer, or leader) just as well as any man. Please keep in mind I'm not quoting what he actually wrote. Anything he reportedly said isn't Baha'i scripture. Let's read what he reportedly said one more time: "The woman has greater moral courage than the man; she has also special gifts which enable her to govern in moments of danger and crisis. If necessary she can become a warrior." A warrior is a non-traditional role for women, isn't it? This was answered in the previous post. I think we're on the same page regarding this point.

"Women are the strong wing, the sensible ones, so they should leave the task of running the House of Justice to brutish men, so men can learn to behave properly"

This has the same structure, and the same result. Women are somehow different - better, more pure, more refined - and therefore they must step down to let the men rule.

Both arguments put women on a pedestal, ostensibly to praise and flatter them, with the effect of limiting what they are allowed to do.

Abdul Baha's words are (unintentionally, but effectively) being reduced to just a new cliche about women, and then slotted into the same old rationalization why the the girls can't go into the boy's treehouse.

Sorry, but the Baha'i Faith doesn't support the patriarchy so prevalent in our society, which treats men and women unequally (e.g., men in general have more income than women in our current society ). As Moojan Momen points out, in the 1980s a female sovereign and female prime minister ruled Britain, but patriarchy still prevailed, providing us with an example of how simply replacing men with women does not necessarily make significant changes in elevating feminine qualities in our world:

"One of the reasons that patriarchy has proved so enduring, despite numerous revolutionary attempts to overthrow the prevailing order, is that power is a subversive value. If there are two groups, A and B, the first of which holds power as its supreme value and the second of which does not, then Group B loses whatever it does. If it sticks to its values and refuses to compete for power with Group A, it is subjugated and A's values are imposed upon it. If B does compete with A, then this can only be through striving for power. In this case, B also adopts power as a value and, therefore, loses its own values. Either way, A succeeds in asserting its values upon B."
Abdu'l-Baha reportedly made the following remark upon his arrival in New York City:

"The world in the past has been ruled by force, and man has dominated woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the balance is already shifting—force is losing its weight and mental alertness, intuition and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine, and more permeated with the feminine ideals—or, to speak more exactly, will be an age in which the masculine and feminine elements in civilisation will be more evenly balanced."

But how does this look in practice? How do we elevate feminine qualities? Momen cites decentralization as one example of how we can increase feminine qualities in our society, and it is one of the features of the Bahá’í Administrative Order:

"Many, perhaps even most, societies were matrifocal in the remote past.(2) The reason that this has ceased might be related to the level of interaction between groups of humans. As long as people were sufficiently thinly spread so that there were few interactions between neighbouring groups, then these groups could remain matrifocal. The situation would have been similar to the matrifocal societies found among most primate groups. But as the pressure of population built up, groups began to interact more extensively with each other and, inevitably, power relations developed, with one group subjugating another.

We may characterise the patriarchal society as giving the greatest value to power, authority, control, victory, ownership, law, courage, strength. The main interactions are power struggles and competition. The ends justify the means. Results are expressed in terms of victory or defeat. There are only points for the winners in such a society, none for the also-rans. It is epitomised by tradition, institutions, civilisation, and control over the natural world. There is a tendency towards centralisation of authority because that is one way of achieving greater and greater power.

In the matrifocal society, by contrast, the highest values are nurturing, life-giving, compassion, sensitivity, spontaneity, creativity, working with nature and giving support to others. The principle interactions are mutual and co-operative. The means are as important as the ends. Victory and success and judged by the degree to which the condition of all is bettered. It is epitomised by the natural world. The mutuality and consultative decision-making that it favours best occurs in small autonomous communities.

What then does the Bahá'í principle of the equality of men and women mean in connection with this? Many people have assumed that it means that women should be given equal power with men in our society—the concept of "empowerment" has become a catch-phrase. But 'Abdu'l-Bahá has called for a feminisation of society itself—for a society in which power is less important.

The world in the past has been ruled by force, and man has dominated woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the balance is already shifting—force is losing its weight and mental alertness, intuition and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine, and more permeated with the feminine ideals—or, to speak more exactly, will be an age in which the masculine and feminine elements in civilisation will be more evenly balanced.(3)

. . . probably the main reason for the decline in the matrifocal society was the increasing pressure of population that led to an increasing ability of one group to have power over others. Greater and greater degrees of centralised power characterises the patriarchal society. Thus, in order to achieve a more feminine society, we must have a greater degree of decentralisation than exists in most of our societies. The Bahá'í administrative order with its insistence on the rights of the local assembly to jurisdiction over its local area; the statements of Shoghi Effendi warning against "the evils of excessive centralization;"(11) the decision of the Universal House of Justice to devolve decisions about the formulation of global plans to a national level; the January 2nd, 1986, letter of the Universal House of Justice that it was this devolution of responsibility that marked the progress of the Bahá'í Faith and the dawn of a new epoch—all these serve to indicate the importance of decentralisation as a feature of the Bahá'í administrative order."
Apart from all that - do you really believe that the right remedy against Ghengid Khan characteristics ist to shut out precisely the demographic who (according to your analysis) would already have the right characteristics?

That seems ... Paradoxical. If men have such a bad track record when left among themselves, leaving them among themselves even more will help?

The remedy must involve the transformation of our animal nature. You're overlooking how the Baha'i Administrative Order is structured in comparison to, say, the inner workings of Genghis Khan's empire.
 
Last edited:
Yet you have no objection to females being educated first. You don't describe it as sexist and patronizing. Here, @Cino, enjoy this cherry:

7b5.jpg

Thanks, I do enjoy fruit (and I got your reference to cherry pickiing)! For my thoughts on this, please read my reply to @RJM Corbet, he raised the same point, whether challenging privilege is the same as disadvantaging the privilege holders.

Sorry, but the Baha'i Faith doesn't support the patriarchy so prevalent in our society, ...The remedy must involve the transformation of our animal nature. You're overlooking how the Baha'i Administrative Order is structured in comparison to, say, the inner workings of Genghis Khan's empire.

If a group of men get to have the last say, then it is patriarchy. I don't see much room to maneuver here.

Maybe your concern is preventing another Ghengis Khan, but mine is preventing a throwback to the bad old ways of power resting in men's hands by religious decree.

I'm not Baha'i, so I don't share your conviction that the Baha'i administrative order is divinely blessed and therefore proof against the problems that plagued all previous attempts at solving this issue by restricting top leadership to men. I see is the result: Women are not allowed to serve as members of the Baha'i Universal House of Justice. And to me, this doesn't look promising, and the arguments I hear that justify this are, to my ears, reiterations of what every previous male-controlled religious hierarchy was arguing to preserve the status quo.

In general, I get the sense that we all had our say on the topic of male privilege, and I don't anticipate anyone coming up with radically new ways of looking at it.

I want to stress once more that this is not a topic unique to the Baha'i Faith, in my opinion, but that all major religions are struggling with the problematic legacy of doctrinally enshrined male primacy.

I also feel a bit sorry that @od19g6 seems to have left the discussion.
 
Last edited:
No @Cino

That's not good enough.
For sex, substitute race. Say clumsy driving or making mistakes at work is ascribed to being Irish, for instance?

So are you saying that because females are weak and/or (historically) disadvantaged, they require special treatment and preferential education? Affirmative action treatment?

What do you do, when you run out of minorities to favour?

Well, there is this concept called "intersectionality"... which can be applied to understanding situations where one person is a member of several groups with different privilege (dark-skinned male Irish driver vs. light-skinned female English driver)... but given how we are already heading away from the topic of "what do you think of the Baha'i faith", opening up the discussion on intersectionality should happen in the "Politics and Society" section of the forum, I suggest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
@Cino -

It may be that the OP, having joined almost simultaneously several forums, with the same introduction thread, just hasn’t made it back to this one yet.
They’ll be back when they realize that we are small but mighty!
 
Hi Ahanu —

sadly, the same way as any non-full-representative governance body holds up the privilege of its members — such as all male, all white, all male and white, etc., etc. It's inarguable that if there were not an a priori process of exclusion, no matter how discreet, then the governing body would comprise a cross-section of the body governed. Ergo, any gov. body that is all male speaks of some kind of exclusion programme, else there would be women members on the panel...

The problem is then the gov body projects a paradigm that reflects itself ... a classic example is the ideas underpinning the Theory of Evolution — survival of the fittest, emergence of the strongest — which emerged from an all-white, male, rich educated elite who saw themselves as naturally the best, the fittest, the strongest and God's elected right in running the world.

No offence against Abdu'l-Baha here, but my hackles rise at this kind of statement ...

As a one-time member of an Hermetic Order that championed the idea of the Feminine, the Lady, the Priestess, an order which modelled itself on courtly chivalry, was an order that was intrinsically sexist if not actually misogynist, something I only figured out a long way in. Let me state emphatically this is exactly the kind of thing men say when they want to put women in a manageable box, and it is sexist, if not misogynist.

To say women are the strongest/ men are the weakest is nonsense. Were that so, women would have emerged in the dominant position in gender politics. Women have been kept 'in their place' by male priority and male force. 'I hunt therefore you depend on me'. When it comes to a stand-up punch-for-punch fight, men have a raft of advantages.

That's why most domestic abuse is men hitting women, not the other way round. That's why men rape women, and instances of females raping males is rare.

Apologies to you, Ahanu, because I respect your posts, but my lionesses, my three daughters, would have this idea for breakfast ...

And ... (High-Horsing now) ... if any Scripture suggests a radical rethink of our gender politics, it's the New Testament Scripture of Revelation —
1.0: The Incarnation

Hello Thomas,

Your reasoning above strikes me as quite a radical interpretation of what Abdu'l-Baha reportedly said, my interpretation of it, and why there is an all-male Universal House of Justice; your reasoning above is not too far removed from the type of critiques we find in Mary Daly's works, in which she views the incarnation as sexist and misogynistic because, according to her reasoning, it boils down to the "usurpation of female power" through "archetypal rape" under the reign of a Christian God who is inherently patriarchal within the theology of orthodox Christianity. Here's Daly in her own words:

". . . women have long been barred from the ministry through specious reasoning about God's maleness and Christ's incarnation as a male."

"In the world of pornographic theological myth this involves an archetypal rape. The christian incarnation myth fulfills this requirement on a grand scale. The transsexed, broken spirit of the Goddess, guised as the holy ghost, rapes the broken and dis-spirited matter of the Goddess (Mary). Thus the myth-molding voyeurs have produced what could be designated the Purest Peep Show of the millennia, a male-identified counterfeit lesbian love scene, issuing in male offspring. The product of this fantastic feat is Jesus. This spectacle of the transsexed, divided goddess raping herself is the ultimate in sadospiritual speculation. It is an idiot's revision of parthenogenesis, converted into rape. The myth of The Incarnation, then, logically implies the usurpation of female power."
Here's a brief summary of Mary Daly's ideas:

"Mary Daly, the feminist theologian and philosopher, has died . She was an audaciously creative spirit; an awkwardly witty, deadly serious writer. She arguably did more to stretch what is possible to think in contemporary feminist theology than any other.

Here's a taste of what she was prepared to say. In books like Gyn/Ecology and Beyond God the Father, she envisaged the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit: the all-male three in one – as an eternal homosexual orgy. She argued that to call God "father" is to make fathers gods, excusing all kinds of horrors from religious totalitarianism to domestic violence. "The character of Vito Corleone in The Godfather is a vivid illustration of the marriage of tenderness and violence so intricately blended in the patriarchal ideal," she wrote in Beyond God the Father. She sought to cause offence, no doubt, though not for it's own sake or to stir a sensation. Rather, her radical reinterpretation dares you to think differently.

I was advised to read her by a professor at Boston College, the Catholic university with which she was uneasily associated for more than 30 years. That's a story in itself, which she wrote about in Amazon Grace: Re-Calling the Courage to Sin Big. My advisor was a Jesuit priest, a man who'd never heard her speak as she banned men from attending her lectures, arguing the act was a just reflection of the long silencing of women. Her performance was as striking as her words.

(It's worth adding that the Boston Jesuits were pretty fearless towards Rome too. Whilst I was staying with them, a missive was issued from the Holy See that had the effect of censoring Catholic institutions. The Jesuits reading of it in their breakfast newspapers protested with the theological equivalent of two fingers. "Rome's a long way from Massachusetts," I recall one saying.) Theologians have contested Daly's claims, not least feminist theologians who have remained within the Christian tradition. They point out that alongside the male images of God as Father and Son are the more ambiguous ones of God as Spirit. In the Hebrew Bible, the Spirit of God is envisaged as a wise woman, Sophia. Sophia has even been aligned with the person of Christ: at the time of Jesus, she was well established as a symbol of God's relatedness. Paul links the figure of Wisdom with the person of Jesus in 1 Corinthians, arguing that this wisdom, from God, makes the wisdom of the world look foolish. Moreover, it's striking that Paul juxtaposes the true (female) wisdom with the faux-wisdom of (male) scholars, philosophers and wise men – arguably a proto-feminist move. And yet, Jesus was a man. The female word Sophia lost out to the male word Logos when it came to interpreting the metaphysics of the Son. Daly moved on from Christianity too. However, there is feminist juice in the Christian stories still, which she implicitly encouraged others to extract. At the heart of the Christian story is the image of a dead man on a cross. He is the victim of male violence – violence in which the God-Father was at least passively complicit. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" the broken figure cries. He is abandoned to the violence of men.

So, the story can be read as transgressive. It's both terrible and hopeful. For a feminist believer, Jesus might be seen as queerly identified with suffering women, thereby offering the hope of redemption by disrupting the cycle of male violence. It's as if the perverse patriarchal ideal of "tender violence", as Daly put it, collapses under the weight of its own hideous contradictions.

Daly might retort that this notion is even more objectionable: the story perpetuates women's reliance on men, even for the alleviation of their suffering. She was not one to let Christian patriarchy off the hook. But at least this reading places responsibility for the violence squarely on the shoulders of men. Daly has inspired a generation to pursue the possibility that Christianity has the capacity to root out its own patriarchy."

Now I want to be clear. Do I support Daly's work? No. The above simply shows the incarnation you view as a "radical rethink of our gender politics" is actually viewed as sexist and misogynistic by some . . .
 
No worries, enough privilege will remain for the boys/men even if for once girls got an early start in education: they can have a bad day without people ascribing it to their being male, they can be clumsy drivers without people ascribing it to them being male, they don't have to worry that their co-workers will think they were hired for their gender, and if they never get promoted, nobody will think it is because they are male, and if their career goes well, nobody will assume they had an affair with their boss. Their salary will not be less than that of women in the same position. When they interview for a job, nobody will think for a moment whether they plan to have kids in the near future. If they decide not to have kids, nobody will question their masculinity, and if they do become dads, people will praise them for spending time with their kids instead of taking it for granted. They will not be expected to spend a lot of time, effort, and money on their appearance. Every major religion, every influential political party, every corporate hierarchy will be controlled mostly by people of their gender. They will not be interrupted when they say something, people will listen to them, even if they just repeat what a women said a moment ago but was ignored for it (I witnessed this last one many times in my work, it makes me cringe every time it happens).

A lot of examples from the corporate world and religious institutions. But you have yet to mention any specific examples of how the Universal House of Justice has undermined the equality of men and women.
 
A lot of examples from the corporate world and religious institutions. But you have yet to mention any specific examples of how the Universal House of Justice has undermined the equality of men and women.
By constituting itself only from men, based on a ruling formulated by men.

I'm not Baha'i, Ahanu. I respect your faith, and I enjoy your company on this forum a lot. I stated my criticism, and went into detail when you asked me about it, but it's getting a bit repetitive. I'll accept that you think the house of justice is an equal opportunity outfit, and it would be nice if you accepted that I think otherwise.
 
To me belief and faith is such when apologists are boxed into a corner their reasoning cannot be discussed amicably as it so dramatically counters their paradigm..I see this applying the gamut from religionists to atheists.
 
To me belief and faith is such when apologists are boxed into a corner their reasoning cannot be discussed amicably as it so dramatically counters their paradigm..I see this applying the gamut from religionists to atheists.

How is this relevant to the topic? Nobody is being unfriendly here.
 
My comment was spurred by the discussion, they don't always pertain directly.

This the ebb and flow of the thread, I am often off in an oxbow lake and not in the main stream of consciousness.
 
By constituting itself only from men, based on a ruling formulated by men.

I'm not Baha'i, Ahanu. I respect your faith, and I enjoy your company on this forum a lot. I stated my criticism, and went into detail when you asked me about it, but it's getting a bit repetitive. I'll accept that you think the house of justice is an equal opportunity outfit, and it would be nice if you accepted that I think otherwise.

Hi cino.

I know I've not been on the forum for awhile, I was just doing some research.

Tell you what, we'll start the conversation again tomorrow.
 
I really don't go for race, sex or gender superiority & inferiority, but if I did it would seem to me that the inferior would need the head start - not the superior and that the superior would be the dominant ones - not the inferior.

Well, mind if I drag you in since I'm boring Cino? I need a dance partner. :p

The Qur'an seems to suggest some kind of hierarchy or superiority between males and females from a certain perspective. It could be a social one, an economic one. How do you view Qur'an 4.34 and 2.228?
 
Hi cino.

I know it's been awhile and I haven't been on the forum.

I just be real brief.

I know that you had concerns about the future of a baha'i majority and and concerns about fanaticism. But once again I can assure that fanaticism will never happen. It's too many safe guards in the baha'i faith that protects it.

I will leave these two here. Have a good one.


 
Thanks, and have a good one, too!

It is very commendable that there are already some safeguards, so why not add more by removing the laws which you don't follow anyway, and would be troublesome in the hands of fanatics, now when the religion is still young and easier to change? That would be a really good safeguard.
 
Actually, the truth is that there are Baha'i sects, according to Wikipedia: Those who accepted Remey as Guardian, the Orthodox Baha'is, and others. They may be small communities, but they do exist. Pretending they don't exist smacks of denial to me, rather than facing the truth.
In the Baha'i Faith there is a covenant where the next leadership is in writing. There are those like Remey that have tried to assert leadership against the covenant though they know better so they have violated unity. They are invalid. Theirs is not a valid Baha'i organization. We don't care about differences in opinion but we do not recognize unlawful attempts to seize power.
 
In the Baha'i Faith there is a covenant where the next leadership is in writing. There are those like Remey that have tried to assert leadership against the covenant though they know better so they have violated unity. They are invalid. Theirs is not a valid Baha'i organization. We don't care about differences in opinion but we do not recognize unlawful attempts to seize power.
Yes, I got that. I was replying to someone stating that there are no Baha'i sects.

I have no idea whether the other Bahai groups view the house of justice as lawful, but my guess would be, that they would express the exact same sentiment you do, from their point of view, and say that you broke the covenant...

Edited to add: Is it about power, then, or about faith in Baha'u'llah?
 
I know we'll never agree about women not being on the Universal House of Justice. But there is no reason to believe that the Universal House of Justice will discriminate against women because the equality of women to men with the principle of the equality firmly established. The running of the Universal House of Justice is not affected by the fact that they are all men. For the Baha'is we believe that their decisions on Baha'i law are inspired by God no matter what the sex, so there is no difference in what the gender is. Abdu'l-Baha has made it clear that the reason the UHJ is all men is not because of any inequality but for only pragmatic or wisdom reasons, those He did not specify what the reasons were. I don't know why He didn't specify why, I wish He did, but I can't judge Abdu'l-Baha, He is the designated interpreter of Baha'u'llah and to doubt the interpretation of Abdu'l-Baha is to disbelieve in Baha'u'llah.

As to non-Baha'is not inheriting, this is only the default position because Baha'is can specify the inheritance however they want to and they are supposed to. But I don't expect people who are not Baha'is to ever agree

The same is true of all Baha'i laws. There's no way for Baha'is to convince others about those laws if people disagree. Nobody becomes a Baha'i by examining the laws to become Baha'is. People become Baha'is for other reasons and then they can accept all the laws and then they may still have doubts of or not understand why.

Another thing to consider about Baha'i law is that it is based on the understandings and culture of all the world, not just Americans. All laws through all religions are based on the conditions of time and place through all history. The laws are not based on absolute truth but on the conditions of man at the time and what mankind is ready for at that time. I'm also suspect than some details of the application of Baha'i law by the Universal House of Justice will differ in different countries because of the diversity of mankind and we believe in unity in diversity. It is clear in the notes in the Aqdas that some details of those laws will be decided by the Universal House of Justice and that can change over time and in different places. Baha'u'llah I believe deliberately left some things vague so the Universal House of Justice can do that.
 
Yes, I got that. I was replying to someone stating that there are no Baha'i sects.

I have no idea whether the other Bahai groups view the house of justice as lawful, but my guess would be, that they would express the exact same sentiment you do, from their point of view, and say that you broke the covenant...

Edited to add: Is it about power, then, or about faith in Baha'u'llah?
I don't care if they think that we broke the covenant. The fact is that the situation is unambiguous if you look at it through the eye of justice. All views are not equally valid. I don't ascribe to the view that all opinions are equally valid. The covenant is a mechanism to establish unity as much as humanly possible. I believe in time all these covenant-breakers will eventually disappear. After Remey, they couldn't even agree on what the next "Guardian" would be. It broke into smaller groups. You'll never agree with this but all these covenant-breaker groups are spiritually invalid.
 
Back
Top