Recent orders
Gender and Religion
Gender and Religion
Gender affects so many facets of life, ranging from family roles, employment and remuneration amongst others. Researchers are increasingly exploring the concept of gender aznd its relationship to religion. Most research concentrates on how traditional concepts of gender affects the roles women play within the church. Bartowski and Read (2003) explore the question of religion within the Muslim community as well as within the protestant churches. The exploration is carried out by comparing how protestant churches approach the question of gender, to how Muslims approach the question of gender under the elitist platform that advocates for female submission. The findings indicate that indeed women reaffirm the traditional gender conceptions and roles as professed by the bible, engaging in acts of submission. Gender roles as highlighted through the research conform with societal and traditional conceptions of gender. Most women found no problem conforming to expectations, in line with the various religious doctrines they operate under. However, a number of Muslim women seemingly struggle to conform to traditional roles, as well as understand the significance of the veil in the traditional religious concept. This can be construed to signify a deeper debate and problem. More and more women are agitating against traditional religious roles, perhaps even going as far as to challenge the very doctrines upon which the church is based. The problem is however not unique to Islam, as Christian women also seemingly struggle to conform with their traditionally assigned roles. Women are increasingly agitating for better leadership positions within the church, something a majority feel should be a foregone conclusion given the fact that they are the majority within the church.
Jenkins and Marti (2012) explore the actions of one such group, known as “God Chics.” The researchers while admitting that the relationship between gender and responsibility in conservative religious organizations is one that encourages submission, more so when considered plainly in the form of how gender affects marriage or institutional power. The researchers provide a different angle and view of the relationship and gender, arguing that women are increasingly agitating for more responsibility within the church; with the question of age also affecting the roles they perform. God Chics in itself, provides an opportunity for older women to play a totally different role: that of possessing godly wisdom. Similar to claims made by Bartowski and Read (2003), the researchers argue that God Chics represents one of the many ways through which women are attempting to redefine the traditional roles that have been accorded to them within the religious circles.
Both articles present the view that feminism is even taking root within the church, to the extent that women are increasingly albeit silently challenging the traditional roles that have been accorded to them within the church. This is being done through the invention of different action groups with exclusive female membership. These groups are then being used to ensure that women gain greater responsibility for particular aspects of the church program. These groups have essentially allowed women to redefine their traditional roles and gain responsibility without ideally challenging the doctrine of submission preached within the church. Women have successfully cut out fresh roles that allow them to break the glass ceiling that had previously curtailed their assumption of positions of responsibility, practicing what Bartowski and Read have come to refer to as “veiled submission.”
References
Bartkowski, John P., and Jen’nan Ghazal Read. 2003. “Veiled Submission: Gender, Power, andIdentity among Evangelical and Muslim Women in the United States. QualitativeSociology 26: 71-92.
Jenkins, Kathleen E., and Gerardo Marti. 2012. “Warrior Chicks: Youthful Aging in aPostmodernist Prosperity Discourse.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 51: 241256.
Gender and Power
Gender and Power
Name
Institution
Gender and Power
Lindemann through her exploration of the practice of BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism and masochism) raises a number of interesting points with regards to the relationship between gender and power, as well as general gender constructs within society in general. In particular, Lindemann explores the fact that the type of relationships that the dominatrix normally have with their male counterparts, goes against the traditional relationship between men and women. This she proceeds to argue, raises the need to further explore the relationship in broader terms and against the backdrop of accepted gender constructs and social interaction. Secondly, the author argues that the relationship between pro-dommes and their male counterparts can also be considered subversive towards gender norms, while at the same time conservative towards these very norms, by virtue of the fact that it is normally the woman that is dominant in such relationships, but at the same time is paid act so. Lindemann actually equates the relationship to that of poorly paid prostitution.
Indeed, the dynamics of the relationship and the complexities with which women seem to be on top while at the same time conservative towards gender norms and constructs, make for very interesting reading. Furthermore, the relationship does raise valid points regarding certain unconventional forms of feminine and masculine desire and comportment usually hidden or foreclosed from public view. Part of the reason why males seek such relationships is perhaps due to an inherent need to be dominated. This is however not in line with the traditional gender constructs, a factor which then leads to the engagement in such relationships (ones in which males want to be dominated). Lindemann’s assertion that such relationships do exist even in normal culture but do so in a hidden manner, are therefore quite valid, and raise very interesting questions and challenges for traditional social interactions. Further, such relationships can be argued to reflect the true social interaction that exists between men and women, as such relationships are honest and often unburdened by social norms and expectations.
Lindemann’s second assertion that such relationships ironically conform to social expectations is also correct, as by accepting money to perform, women are essentially participating in low paid prostitution. Furthermore, by allowing themselves to be used as sexual objects aimed at satisfying particular male erotic needs devoid of any emotion serves to fuel the view of women as simple sexual objects, meant to submit to men. In this case, women simply seem to be submitting to the spending power of men, who act submissive out of their own accord, rather than to conform to set social norms and expectations.
Overall, Lindemann makes a number of valid arguments and assertions regarding the relationship between gender and power, as well as how BDSM relationships serve to challenge the traditional socially accepted view of women as the submissive. This also raises the bigger question of whether or not men prefer to be dominant, or are simply forced by society and societal norms, to be as dominant as they are. Conversely, the relationship also serves to reaffirm common social beliefs of the woman as the submissive and inferior gender, due to the fact that it is essentially a demonstration of submission to male spending power, with the males then exploiting this power to satisfy their own sexual needs.
Reference
Lindemann, D. (2012). Dominatrix: Gender, Eroticism, and Control in the DungeonDominatrix:Gender, Eroticism, and Control in the Dungeon. University of Chicago Press
Gender and Political Participation
Gender and Political Participation
Name
Institution
Gender and Political Participation
Introduction
Lawless in the book It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office, explores the question gender patterns in political participation, more so on the question of limited participation by women when it comes to elective politics. Loveless begins the exposition by exploring elective politics in general, as well as the gender patterns usually observable in politics. She then proceeds to explain why the situation is as it is, right from gender socialization, the traditional family roles, the role of the gendered psyche on the situation as well as the effect that a masculinized ethos has on female political participation. The book is therefore, an in-depth analysis of the current political situation, as well as explanations for the current situation.
Main Points
The main points explored by the book include:
Existing explanations: Lawless explores the currently existing explanations including a lack of true cultural evolution and societal rejection in what Lawless refers to as “The Discrimination Explanation.” The second explanation provided by Lawless, is that of lack of institutional progress, as well as a smaller pool of eligible candidates
How political office and its roles are not palatable for a typical household woman, or a woman socialized to believe in the family dream, hence an explanation of how family roles may act as significant impediments to a woman’s political ambition.
The book explores how the socialization of eligible candidates usually differs significantly to that of a typical wife.
Further, the book also explores the career women that are likely to venture into politics.
How political recruitment is skewed in favor of the male gender
How gender psyche and a feeling of being unqualified discourages most females from running for office (poor self perception).
The sexist environment that is commonplace in politics also affects the willingness of women to participate.
How the decision to run for office is a process and requires courage and sacrifice that most women are unwilling to offer.
Questions
Is politics structured in a way that discriminates women?
It is plausible to argue that politics and the political arena is set up in a way that only suits the male gender, while significantly discouraging female participation. The sexist nature of contemporary politics also serves to worsen the situation
Can cultural evolution resolve the lack of equal gender participation in politics?
The problem cannot be cured through cultural evolution alone, or through affirmative action alone, more so if the problem of institutional incumbency persists. The way in which political organizations and the electoral processes are set up, play a significant role in reducing female participation.
How much of an impediment is self-perception to the participation of women in politics?
Self perception is in my opinion the biggest impediment, as regardless of how many laws are changed, if women do not feel sufficiently capable to offer themselves as candidates, the level of gender participation will continue to remain skewed in favor of the male gender. Most of the reforms that need to occur will also not take place.
Does political candidacy depend on one’s socialization?
Lawless’ suggestions that candidates are socialized in a different manner is plausible, more so when one considers the fact that certain families usually have a tendency of producing politicians and the existence of political dynasties. Candidates are therefore, socialized in a manner different from that of the rest of the population
Question 4
Gender participation in the political field differs from other fields mainly due to the fact that politics is significantly influenced by cultural beliefs and societal values. The success of female candidates usually depends on how society values a woman, or how the given society views the role of the woman. In some societies, female contestants are not viewed kindly, as they are seen as none conformists and rebellious. Although with time the attitude of most of the public and of societies has changed towards female candidates, the motivation to seek office amongst the women is seemingly minimal or non-existent. The problem is therefore, both at a personal level, as well as at a cultural level, with politics considered too dishonest a profession for women. Secondly, women seemingly do not consider politics a profession worthy of their participation.
References
Lawless, J. L. & Fox, R. L. (2010). It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office.New York: Cambridge University Press.