Formerly nuns were considered 2nd rate and did little more than the monk's housework at the temples, but these days are on a much more even footing.

 

The main problem for women in Buddhism is only monks can earn karma, and women can't become monks. Men earn their karma by becoming a monk at some point in their lives, usually for only a few months. When a man becomes a monk he not only earns karma for himself, but for his mother too. This is the only way women can earm karma. It's of course problematic, if the women only has daughters, or has no children at all. Hence the fact male children are more prized by mother's than daughters.

 

Recently this has changed in modern looking Buddhist countries who are gradually accepting the idea nuns can earn karma too. Also it's becoming accepted there are other methods of earning karma, such as charity work, donations to templesor joining one of an increasing number of Buddhist cults.

 

 

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3797/bwjgo0.jpg - http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3797/bwjgo0.jpg  in the local

 

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2659/gumgn7.jpg - http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2659/gumgn7.jpg  'gum' if you did good or bad with other people in your life

 

it is a pleasure of my.

 

from what i know, the fundamental principle of buddism is that all beings are equal, so don t think buddidm have any thing to do with it because it violates its principle.

as Paul mentioned that traditionally buddist nuns weren t allowed to earn Karmar(the concept is still unclear to me) well since we are talking about the principles rather than facts, i suppose it is just that people have different understanding to the principle of buddism, and plus, there are traditionally more monks than nuns, i guess that's where the discremination came from.

 

Women were unable to earn karma for the next life. The only way to do this was from a son becoming a monk. Nowadays nuns can earn it too. Good fortune for the present can be earnt by anybody, by feeding monks, gifting temples or doing good, but doesn't count towards the next life.

 

Negatives such as killing [anything] is against a Buddhist commandment so bwj not gum. So effect the next life not present fortune. Hence in restaurants when a cook needs to cook seafood alive, they hire a child to drop it in the boiling water. The theory being the child has a lifetime to [if male become a monk] [if female have a son] and work off the poor reincarnation. Similarly most slaughterhouse hire Muslims because Buddhists refuse to work in these places garunteed a poor reincarnation if they do.

 

Ironically Buddhist countries have some of the most inhumanely killed and factory farmed animals of any country. Because the Buddhist commandment says you shouldn't kill animals but says nothing about eating animals killed by other people. Even Buddhist monks, in contrast to popular myth, eat meat this way.  

 

 

 

There are no versions of the Koran only various translations. There is huge difference.

 

Cahaya

 

Do u think that your religion deprecates women?

 

Alright, I'm being lazy with my words. translations/interpretations.

 

And this is somehow not degrading to women? Just because men are pysically stronger, they have the right to tell us what to do? Sorry boys, that's not going to cut it for me...

Women 'are' weaker then men, generally.

 

I was just pointing out that they 'are'. Nothing more nothing less.

Men however generally will dominate women as they have always done, blame evolution.

 

Women should learn kung-fu, go to the gym and go up a size.

 

You're entirely making too much of this. In Islam, men are treated as men, and women are treated as women. The end.

 

Also, bear in mind that women's suffrage only took place in America in the 1920s and prior to then, women were deemed especially inferior to men. Blacks and other minorities were treated as second-class citizens until the late 1960s, and the Native American population in the U.S.A. is virtually non-existent now -especially when compared to their presence in the Americas prior to the 17th Century. My point being that one should look inward prior to criticizing others.

 

Now, if all these ^^^ things took place in 20th Century America, then you can understand why the Qu'ran, having been written almost 1400 years ago, would state it as such. It wasn't really until the 1970s that American women really began acheiving "equality" (although it is debateable whether they have actually acheived this), and there were texts written and used in American schools in the 20th Century that taught girls and boys that women were inferior to men -now if this was happening in 20th Century America, wouldn't you EXPECT it to happen in 7th Century Arabia???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If i may correct myself here a little, i was not insinuating that all mullahs are chauvinists. I was saying that those that are can be challenged from the very text and be led out of their ignorance.

 

At the end i dont see women leading a military campaign against men so the only recourse is to convince by argument. I dont think men inherently lack the ability to understand women, just like women dont with men. 

 

In the end what do we mean by equality. Do women want to run in the mens 100m. Do they want men to stop standing up for them in buses, i would be naturally inclined to do that, but dont, because i never know if i am going to be dealing with a feminist or a feminine. However most would like someone to get up for them. 

See!, men can come up with issues.

 

I did not say that you were "making too much of [women's rights]" ....

 

I said that you were "making too much of [how a book written in the 7th Century perceived women]" .......

 

Of course, the advancement in women's rights is a good thing! It's an excellent thing!

 

I also know that if the Qu'ran was written in the 21st Century, then the "place of women" in Islamic society would be completely different.

 

Do you understand that reasoning???

Originally posted by malizai_ I dont think there should even be a womens history sub-forum, do we see a men history forum. Is that sexist? Why should their history be discussed seperately?, can you not be a women and from the mddle ages, or a woman and from columbia?. Is history gender specific? Y do women want seperation? See!, men can come up with issues.

 

That's why I stopped posting much in this sub-forum, because special focus on women contradicts the principals of equality.

 

 

 

I think its perfectly fine with a womens forum - I would even stretch to call it a necessity if we aim to recognize and treat men AND women equal for what they have done through history.

Prior to the creation of this forum, hardly any historical woman was mentioned on AE

Its not only insane dictators, testosterone haunted generals and ancient Gods and prophets that ought to be forgotten who created the history of which we all are a product.  

 

This forum is a live proof of that.

 

~ Northman

 

 

 

Personally I have as much sympathy for women who whinge about their inequality in religion as I would a black man who joins the Ku Klux Klan and then gets a niggling feeling he might not be getting treated as well as the other members.

 

 

 

Although I like analogy's like this to put things in another perspective, I think your comparison miss the target completely.

If it should have been valid, the black man should have been born into the membership of KKK.

Most women, including the ones in question here, are born into their religion - noone ever asked them to join and they certainly never asked for the ill treatments which were extended to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what the "sunna" says that isn't holy scripture that is a man-made compliation of what the Prophet(pbuh), might or might not have said. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, all of Allempires is a men's history forum. As most of the member seem not able to include women in their normal accounts of history, this forum is necessary...

 

Nice attempt at provocation Paul. But I will not bite.

 

You are so right Paul - oppressed and abused women enjoys it.

 

A good example is my own wife.

 

Every morning she greets me with a smile in the kitchen - my breakfast is already prepared and she looks at her master with the most adoring look in her eyes

Yesterday, I couldnt quite understand why she kept turning her right cheek at me until I realized I had forgotten her usual hard slap across her face.

Of course I slapped her - real hard - I want to keep her happy.

 

 

 

If all the accounts of prominent women's history were written without hinderance and obstacle, do you think they will equal mens?

 

I honestly can't see how men have reduced AE women to the AE kitchen. If anything, i think because of disproportionate women representation in membership, overwhelmingly majority of men have been extraordinarily supportive of women's contribution. One just needs to look at the reception Mila got to welcome her back.

Originally posted by Northman I think its perfectly fine with a womens forum - I would even stretch to call it a necessity if we aim to recognize and treat men AND women equal for what they have done through history. Prior to the creation of this forum, hardly any historical woman was mentioned on AE Its not only insane dictators, testosterone haunted generals and ancient Gods and prophets that ought to be forgotten who created the history of which we all are a product. This forum is a live proof of that.

 

Look up equality.

 

 

 

Totally agree.....    And - when the equal representation doesnt happen, we create a forum for Womens History. 

Fair and square.

 

And in the total of my 60 year old life, I never met a woman opposing a bit of special treatment - in all aspects

 

Dont you think they deserve it?

 

 

 

Ah.... reminds me of the Women's issue of the magazine.

 

and the last paragraph of the editorial.

 

 

 

  http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=july_monthly_features - http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=july_monthly_features

 

 Louise Labe wrote, “if any woman becomes so proficient as to be able to write down her thoughts, let her do so, and not despise the honour but rather flaunt it instead of fine clothes, necklaces, and rings...”

 

 

There is evidence proving that there was an order of deaconesses in the Church up until--I believe--somewhere around the ninth century (I might have made that date up; feel free to check it). There is also evidence that ordination to the female diaconate was sacramental. Many have suggested reviving the ancient order of deaconesses, and I believe some local churches may have done it. There is not however, strong evidence for the presence of a female order of presbyters in the early Church.

 

As for whether or not this constitutes female "oppression," I guess that depends on your understanding of Christianity. The Church understands that women and men possess different, but equally important roles.

 

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Northman Dont you think they deserve it?

 

Hehe, I can't say no to that.

Sorry for jousting with you earlier - was having a bad day here.

You're right - when there's lack of certain subject matter, a sub-forum is a good idea & I wish we could do it for all human segments of society who's contributions to history are under-represented. 

 

Actually it's not endured by women to appease men. This implies a willing victim resigned to their fate. Actually genital mutilation is performed upon a helpless and unwilling child, by women, the child having no concept of appeasing men.

 

Please explain the difference between this act performed upon a child by women, and a rape performed upon a women by a man.

 

And before you answer if you consider the former to be pre-conditioned cultural act. Are you condoning rape as a pre-conditioned cultural act by men?

 

 

 

Again the older generation of women weren't broken by men but an even older generation of women. Who inturn were broken by women too. It's endemic.

 

 

Personally I've never regarded feminists as a power threat, great comedy, but no power threat.... A post-feminist, now that's a different story.

 

 

I think the tombstone of feminism is either Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

 

South Africa was a country that had apartied. Outside the South African embassy, were men, not black but white, who sat in candlight vigil. Companies boycotted the place, songs like free Nelson Mandela were sung and soon enough the white regime came crashing down.

 

What did women do about the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which treated women worse than blacks were treated in South Africa? What do they do now about Saudi Arabia? Or ever? What do the feminists of this forum at this precise moment post about Saudi Arabia? The answer to all these questions is sweet Jack.

 

If women, not Saudi women, but modern western feminist women had half the gumption of men who protested over apartied.............

 

 

 

I found online a religion who does not discriminate women

 

http://www.womanthouartgod.com - www.womanthouartgod.com

 

 

 

 Wicca for example, and various other forms of Paganism.