Women in Greece challange Medieval law

Originally posted by Leonidas they cant be established on Mount Athos. The European Parliament asked Greece to make gender rights equal in 2002 and 2003, both times with no results.  AKAIK, this territory doesn't even fall under direct government control, and they are wasting their time in thinking they can influence the church, which is ment to be beyond government inteference. IIRC not even female animals are not allowed, though exceptions were made on the non female ban for humanitarian reasons but im not sure of the details. This is just protesting for the sake of it, while i might not understand why females are banned, or even disagree with it (if i did), i would totally respect this sacred and ancient orthodox sanctuary for what it is and move on to something more important like; equality of wages, maternity leave and much more relevant issues closer to home. edit: improved a poorly written post

I just do not see how women are "impure" to be there. However, protesting and encroaching upon "sacred" land isn't the solution either. There should be a reform in order to make a site available for a convent. Nevertheless that is not the approach to take in order to attain that goal either. Pissing people off only leads to reprisals and unwillingness and God knows people in the Balkans can be hardheaded about the most minuscule thing.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Female POWER!   Down with men!   Now seriously.... It is a bit too much of a trifle to start protesting over, but a law that forbids women to go somewhere wased on nothing more than the fact that they are female (and more disgustingly, becuse females are 'impure') is pretty damn sad.     Originally posted by Menumorut And by the way, is known that the feminists are ugly, frustrated women.   You sound a bit scared... or frustrated maybe?

Yeah I have no clue how that "impure" theory still gets tolerated.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Well, there is also the practical consideration of the effect that a sudden influx of women would have on the passions of the monks.

So if those monks suddenly would meet women they would get completely crazy?

that's revealing...

In Romania there are two monasteries where the access of women is not allowed. One is new, founded after 1990, the other being also not very old, the half of 19th century.

This is the monasteries most ascetical and where one can find the Orthodoxy at its highest integrity, because here the services are most strictly respected and everything works best.

This is a proof that gender separation produces the best environment for contemplation life.


At Athos still are monks and hermits completely defying world's richness, living in evangelical bareness and looking like beggers, being dressed in tatters:

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Athonite_Hermits/index.shtml (scroll down the page)

How come noone is shocked by the fact that female animals are banned too?

Originally posted by Menumorut That statement is rather offensive and stereotyping, and sexist. I don't think thats the proper way to address this issue. OK. Yeah I have no clue how that "impure" theory still gets tolerated. Is nothing about impure. Haven't you read what I sayed? The fact that female animals are not allowed is not because they are impure but because this way is created a more female-less environment. The monks want to leave in chastity and seeing female animale would weaken this. Also they want live in material simplicity. Few decades ago there were not roads, electricity, only foot paths.

The article clearly implied that it is due to "female impurity."

Ok then what is this about... AFIK monasteries have been seperate... that's the whole point of monastic life...

From what I've gathered these aren't religiously minded nuns who want a chance to worship with the monks. It's a bunch of secular feminists who want to frustrate traditionalists and force hundreds of years of non-interfering tradition to disappear in the name of the great femininity.

AKAIK, this territory doesn't even fall under direct government control, and they are wasting their time in thinking they can influence the church, which is ment to be beyond government inteference.

Agreed this place is designated as an independent monastic collective and by agreement by Greece they can govern themselves as they wish.

Now seriously.... It is a bit too much of a trifle to start protesting over, but a law that forbids women to go somewhere wased on nothing more than the fact that they are female (and more disgustingly, becuse females are 'impure') is pretty damn sad.

Not exactly.....

Monks feel that the presence of women alters the social dynamics of the community and therefore slows the path towards spiritual enlightenment. It is incorrect to suggest that the prohibition is in order to reduce sexual temptation. This myth has earned the Holy Mountain a certain amount of unnecessary notoriety. However, female domestic animals are forbidden (with the exception of cats, which keep down the rodent population, and chickens, which lay eggs that provide the fresh egg yolk needed for the paint used in iconography). The interdiction is punished by imprisonment from one to two years.

So therefore if you believe women should be allowed there, then men should be allowed into women's bathhouses and such because it obviously wouldn't upset the "social dynamic" there.

Also Mt. Athos has allowed women before, as refugees from warfare, and I would say since war all ready screws up social dynamics it wasn't too much of a problem.

Traditions are no excuse for discrimination.

So your saying that if I was an anarchist then I should be allowed to storm Buckingham Palace and piss on the throne there, after all they're discriminating against me just for the sake of "royalist tradition".

It's a matter of respect for other's beliefs, they were there first, it is up to them to decide their own rules and laws.

The monks want to leave in chastity and seeing female animale would weaken this.

Um..............., you may want to rephrase that, or at least I hope you want to rephrase that.........

The article clearly implied that it is due to "female impurity."

The article is wrong on this aspect. Read other materials about this reglementation.. On the article on Wikipedia is stated:

Monks feel that the presence of women alters the social dynamics of the community and therefore slows the path towards spiritual enlightenment. It is incorrect to suggest that the prohibition is in order to reduce sexual temptation. This myth has earned the Holy Mountain a certain amount of unnecessary notoriety..

So, is not even about sexual atraction. In Orthodox Christian theology, nothing is impure (there are several verses in Paul's epistles about this) except what is done doubting (if you belief that something is sin and do it, then is sin).

Greatest spiritual center for men that is, if women cannot enjoy the same benefits of living in a convent on Mt. Athos then they are obviously excluded from general consensus.

The Mountain was established like a place for men. Not because in Orthodox belief women are considered inferior. There is a reference in one of Paul's epistles that the man is the head of woman but I haven't met in dogmatical works or in the writings of Holy Fathers that this is correct. Personaly, I believe that the man is not the head of woman in a marriage or that the man are superior in anything. The fact that priesthood is restricted to men is because it needs to be a discipline in Church.


As for a place where only wmen monasteries to be, it didn't appeared yet necesary because if would have felt that is necesary, would have been made.

Um...............Ermm, you may want to rephrase that, or at least I hope you want to rephrase that.........

I mean they want to have an as perfect environment as possible. Female domestic animals could sugest sexual ideas, as well as children (persons bellow 18 are not allowed in the Mountain, nor as monks or visitors).

Originally posted by es_bih How exactly does that bring discipline to the Church that men are priests? The early Church had had female priests and leaders. I know this is the case now, but the initial Church did not have such a strong emphasis on Male predominance in the Church. A similar thing happened in Islamic hierarchy where there were numerious important female leaders, imams, sheykhs but later a more patriarchical "clergy(a loose term considering that there is no official clergy in Islam)." One should not confuse Patriarchal traditions for discipline.

Paul says that the bishop (in early decades of the Church this was meaning priest) should be man.

If both women and men would be priests would appear complications, like cases of adultery among the altar servants.

Never women have been priests, only deaconesses. Today the deaconesses no more exist but there is an interest to re-introduce them.

Edited by Menumorut - 11-Jan-2008 at 12:56

Originally posted by Akolouthos I think I might start a thread on this topic, and if I do so, I invite you to discuss it with me.

Of course.

Edited by Menumorut - 11-Jan-2008 at 16:11