Matriarchy - in Religious Thought

In Religious Thought

Some theology and theocracy limit or forbid women from being in civil government or public leadership or forbid them from voting. Within none of the following religions is the respective view necessarily universally held:

• In Islam, some Muslim scholars hold that female political leadership is prohibited. The prohibition has been attributed to a hadith of Muhammad, the founder and last prophet of Islam. The hadith says, "A people which has a woman as leader will never prosper." The hadith's transmission, context, and meaning have been questioned. The prohibition has also been attributed as an extension of a ban on women leading prayers "in mixed gatherings" (which has been challenged) and to a restriction on women traveling (an attribution also challenged). Possibly, the hadith applies only against being head of state and not other high office. One source would allow a woman to "occupy every position except that of khalīfa (the leader of all Muslims)." One exception to the head-of-state prohibition was accepted without a general acceptance of women in political leadership. Political activism at lower levels may be more acceptable to Islamist women than top leadership positions. The Muslim Brotherhood has stated that women may not be president or head of state but may hold other public offices but, "s for judiciary office, .... he majority of jurispudents ... have forbidden it completely." In a study of 82 Islamists in Europe, 80% said women could not be state leaders but 75% said women could hold other high positions. In 1994, the Muslim Brotherhood said that "'social circumstances and traditions'" may justify gradualism in the exercise of women's right to hold office (below head of state). Whether the Muslim Brothers still support that statement is unclear. As reported in 1953, "Islamic organizations held a conference in the office of the Muslim Brothers .... claim ... that it had been proven that political rights for women were contrary to religion". Some nations have specific bans. In Iran at times, women have been forbidden to fill some political offices because of law or because of judgments made under the Islamic religion. As to Saudi Arabia, "Saudi women ... are ... not allowed to enter parliament as anything more than advisors; they cannot vote, much less serve as representatives".
• In Judaism, among orthodox leaders, a position, beginning before Israel became a modern state, has been that for women to hold public office in Israel would threaten the state's existence, according to educator Tova Hartman, who reports the view has "wide consensus". When Israel ratified the international women's equality agreement known as CEDAW, it reserved nonenforcement for any religious communities that forbid women from sitting on religious courts. "he tribunals that adjudicate marital issues are by religious law and by custom entirely male." "'Men's superiority' is a fundamental tenet in Judaism". Likud party-led "governments have been less than hospitable to women's high-level participation."
• In Buddhism, some hold that "he Buddha allegedly hesitated to admit women to the Saṅgha ...." "n certain Buddhist countries—Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand—women are categorically denied admission to the Saṅgha, Buddhism's most fundamental institution." "Throughout history, the support of the Saṅgha has been actively sought as a means of legitimation by those wishing to gain and maintain positions of political power in Buddhist countries."
• Among Hindus in India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, "India's most extensive all-male Hindu nationalist organization," has debated whether women can ever be Hindu nationalist political leaders but without coming to a conclusion. The Rashtriya Sevika Samiti, a counterpart organization composed of women, believes that women can be Hindu nationalist political leaders and has trained two in Parliament, but considers women only as exceptions, the norm for such leadership being men.
• In Protestant Christianity, considered only historically, in 1558, John Knox wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. The work is "perhaps the best known analysis of gynecocracy" and Knox was "the most notorious" writer on the subject. According to an 1878 edition, Knox's objection to any women reigning and having "empire" over men was theological and it was against nature for women to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city. Susan M. Felch said that Knox's argument was partly grounded on a statement of the apostle Paul against women teaching or usurping authority over men. According to Maria Zina Gonçalves de Abreu, Knox argued that a woman being a national ruler was unnatural and that women were unfit and ineligible for the post. Kathryn M. Brammall said Knox "considered the rule of female monarchs to be anathema to good government" and that Knox "also attacked those who obeyed or supported female leaders", including men. Robert M. Healey said that Knox objected to women's rule even if men accepted it. On whether Knox personally endorsed what he wrote, according to Felch, Jasper Ridley, in 1968, argued that even Knox may not have personally believed his stated position but may have merely pandered to popular sentiment, itself a point disputed by W. Stanford Reid. On the popularity of Knox's views, Patricia-Ann Lee said Knox's "fierce attack on the legitimacy of female rule ... he said ... little that was unacceptable ... to most of his contemporaries", although Judith M. Richards disagreed on whether the acceptance was quite so widespread. According to David Laing's Preface to Knox's work, Knox's views were agreed with by some people at the time, the Preface saying, " views were in harmony with those of his colleagues ... ". Writing in agreement with Knox was Christopher Goodman, who, according to Lee, "considered the woman ruler to be a monster in nature, and used ... scriptural argument to prove that females were barred ... from any political power", even if, according to Richards, the woman was "virtuous". Some views included conditionality; while John Calvin said, according to Healey, "that government by a woman was a deviation from the original and proper order of nature, and therefore among the punishments humanity incurred for original sin", nonetheless Calvin would not always question a woman's right to inherit rule of a realm or principality. Heinrich Bullinger, according to Healey, "held that rule by a woman was contrary to God's law but cautioned against using that reason to oppose such rule". According to Richards, Bullinger said women were normally not to rule. Around 1560, Calvin, in disagreeing with Knox, argued that the existence of the few women who were exceptions showed that theological ground existed for their exceptionalism. Knox's view was much debated in Europe at the time, the issue considered complicated by laws such as on inheritance and since several women were already in office, including as Queens. Queen Elizabeth considered her authority "hers by divine ordination as well as by inheritance .... and .... she was ordained to rule". Knox's view is not said to be widely held in modern Protestantism among leadership or laity.