Male verses female spirituality

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Altair

Clearly you are hung up about the word dominance because you associate it with figures that you dislike, and as a consequence, you think it says something about me as well.

I'll clarify...
Dominance means power and influence over others (source: Lexico). A parent has dominance over a child, a boss over a worker, a professor over his students etc. etc.

We can of course ask ourselves ((and we should!!)) to what degree dominance should be displayed and kept in check, but to do away with it would be anarchy and also does not work nor does it exists. You have a certain idea/image about ''dominance'' (PM of Britain, President of the US) and you associate them wi th the word, and you then think it is best to do away with what is behind the word.

Originally Posted by Altair

perhaps you imagine the worst cases. That says something about one's beliefs......

What you have said is not about me rather it is about how you see me.
I take no ownership in it. My perception offers more diversity, flexibility, and choices.
You don't seem to like the message so you scorn the messenger. I will just leave it
there and we can agree to disagree. Peace.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Starman

What you have said is not about me rather it is about how you see me.
I take no ownership in it. My perception offers more diversity, flexibility, and choices.
You don't seem to like the message so you scorn the messenger. I will just leave it
there and we can agree to disagree. Peace.

I don't know how to 'see' you, Starman. There is no scorn, only a direct approach. I go by what I'm reading here from you, and you view 'dominance' in a negative light and associate it with the British PM and the US president. That's IMO narrow and very selective. My own views on the word are more broad and I don't view it negatively, same way with words such as ''power'', ''control'' etc. How these are or should be exercised is a question for discussion, but not recognizing them as innate features of life, and associating them with a selectively picked members of humanity, does not appear an informed position.

[Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by hallow

Maybe it's harder for males to talk about spiritual things. Or maybe males and females are just different and they express it differently making harder for one or the other to understand each other in spiritual terms.

I find that men often tend to keep there thoughts about such things private and internal where as woman are more likely to band together and discuss it.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by asearcher

Hi, in my small world of family friends co-workers I have noticed that a lot of the close relationships I have with females that they are more spiritual than the men are. I have noticed few to be in my soul group that is we have been together in past lives so perhaps this is why we are both in a similar place spiritually, this with the females. Only I have noticed that the few men (from one exception) I have too recognized as soul mates from past lives are not and they ought to have been around as long as the female has. Could it be something in the brain that is preventing the spirituality to kick off for the males in my surrounding? There is also a female that I have recognized to have been a male in a past life and she is less spiritual than another female that I too have recognized in a past life but then as female then too and she is more spiritual. The only exception for me is one male that was very spiritual in my past life and is this way in this life too.

I hope no body get upset with me for posting this, maybe it is just a coincidence in my life with the male verses female spirituality. I am only curious...

I find this quite insightful and generally true. Women seems to be more intuitive and spiritual than men, but unfortunately all religions and heads of religious institutions are all dominated by men. I suppose this is the hangover of a parochial culture in the past favoring males.

Being a male myself, I have to admit that males have corrupted religion to the point that religion itself has become an instrument to forment conflict, hatred and violence.

It is also ironic that there is only a single spiritual organization in the world called the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, which have female leaders and teachers as an institution rule.

Till date,astonishingly there has never been a female Pope, Ayatollah or Shankaracharya or Dalai Lama ( heads of christian, muslim, Hindu and Buddhist institutions) and this shows the male dominated culture of the religious world.

Hopefully the example of the Prajapita Brahmakumaris can stimulate the creation of female leaders in other religions worldwide.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Till date,astonishingly there has never been a female Pope, Ayatollah or Shankaracharya or Dalai Lama ( heads of christian, muslim, Hindu and Buddhist institutions) and this shows the male dominated culture of the religious world.

Given that the Catholic Church does not allow woman priests it would be even more astonishing if there had been a female Pope.

Of course, there is the story of Pope Joan (855-857), although many discount this as fictional. From Wikipedia:

Most versions of her story describe her as a talented and learned woman who disguised herself as a man, often at the behest of a lover. In the most common accounts, due to her abilities, she rose through the church hierarchy and was eventually elected pope. Her sex was revealed when she gave birth during a procession, and she died shortly after, either through murder or of natural causes. The accounts state that later church processions avoided this spot, and that the Vatican removed the female pope from its official lists and crafted a ritual to ensure that future popes were male. In the 16th century, Siena Cathedral featured a bust of Joan among other pontiffs; this was removed after protests in 1600.

This gives rise to another myth, that after a Pope is elected someone has the dubious pleasure of checking his genitalia to make sure the Pope is a man:

It is a commonly held myth that, following election, the Pope-elect would be made to sit in a chair with a hole cut in the seat. There would then be a visual or manual examination of the Pope-elects genitalia. If the examiner was convinced that the new Pope was a man he was supposed to have shouted “Testiculos habit et bene pendents!” “He has testicles, and they hang well!”

Catholicism is rather strange.

Peace

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Till date,astonishingly there has never been a female Pope, Ayatollah or Shankaracharya or Dalai Lama ( heads of christian, muslim, Hindu and Buddhist institutions) and this shows the male dominated culture of the religious world.

True the cultures may have treated females badly many a times (which was a wrong thing) . But many a times differences were / are these due to reasons like biological / physical / psychological. And that is more specialization than discrimination . The strictures if any put on them is mainly due to the inherent differences . But in no way they lack spiritual / intellectual capability to equal males.

If the question inferiority/superiority comes between male/female , I may argue for female superiority . However in reality both are equal in importance and have their own unique places / situations of superiority.


If you talk Hinduism , it has so many Goddess Laxmi, Kali , Saraswati, Durga, Amba whereby females are treated par with male Gods . Contemporarily head of Swadhyaya family too is female beside Brahmakumaris .

Indian view of male /female spirituality is of both possessing some prominent traits and some latent traits and marriage being an occasion to imbibe deficit/lacking traits without loosing prominent traits from the spouse.

Ardh-narinateshwar (Composite deity with conjoined with both sexes) is a worshipped deity form in Hinduism.

[markings]

Originally Posted by ajay00

I find this quite insightful and generally true. Women seems to be more intuitive and spiritual than men, but unfortunately all religions and heads of religious institutions are all dominated by men. I suppose this is the hangover of a parochial culture in the past favoring males.

I could agree with women being more intuitive but not more spiritual. It is a serious mistake to confuse feeling and emotions with spirituality.
The reason why religious institutions are dominated by men is because they can supply greater clarity than the women of old. If one wallows in an ocean of feelings it is difficult to explain concepts and ideas clearly.

Originally Posted by markings

I could agree with women being more intuitive but not more spiritual. It is a serious mistake to confuse feeling and emotions with spirituality.
The reason why religious institutions are dominated by men is because they can supply greater clarity than the women of old. If one wallows in an ocean of feelings it is difficult to explain concepts and ideas clearly.

This is a very male, parochial view for sure. Emotions = bad and unclear.

As always, Starman, your posts are much appreciated - reasonable, reasoned, balanced, sympathetic and grand in vision and body

I read recently the current Pope ordained some women priests?