The least sexist religion?
Most religions have an element of sexism in their texts, intentionally or unintentionally. But what religion is the least sexist in your opinion or not sexist at all?
Comments178
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Paganism/Satanism.
Satanism because it's about individual choice giving no fucks to who or what the individual is.
For some reason, I read other relies. I see someone mentioned Buddhism & got jumped on by 2 other users disproving Buddhism. I might join that conversation, but I might end up setting a huge explosion so I'd rather post an actual reply to the OP instead.
Since I live in a country full of Buddhists, is it true that Buddhism is a least sexist religion? Pretty much, depends on what aspect you want to know. As a day to day life? We're not sexist, we are all in here suffer from karma, dukkha & all, born to age, age to sick, sick to die, death is a journey with no return yadeeyada all the same for men women children young & old blah blah blah, no differences here.
In rituals? Besides telling women to sit in a way that she won't showing her vagina to everybody? Unless you think that's sexist, I just think that's a service to the women themselves. Well, there's also the other 1 saying women can't directly touch monks because monks are also human & can be aroused & touching is considered a seduction. I can see why this rule was made, unless you think it's too extreme. But hey, some Buddhist monks live in seclusion for years or even decades, it's not like they get to see women all the time, again, I can see why this rule was made.
The teachings? Before I get to that point, let me talk about a book I've read for a bit. In highschool, I've read a book called "From the Land of Green Ghosts" written by a Burmese guerrilla fighter about his life before he seek refuge & became an English citizen. In that book, he used to dated a Buddhist woman back when he was studying in Rangoon. He asked her is it true that Buddhism sees women to be inferior to men. She told him that it's too complicated to explain. Well guess what? I can explain & I can make it simple, too!
In the cycle of samsara, women are indeed inferior to men. Why not? It's true! Women are inferior to men! Now here's why!
Women have more dukkha than men. That means there are more things women have to put up with in all of their lives than men. Got to look good to impress people, fashion, PMS, risks of getting pregnant in a time where she doesn't want to, pain of pregnancy, child labour, raising kids, living in a sexually unequal culture, burden of picking the right husband or being forced to marry men whom she barely knew, valued for the ability to give birth, live longer than her husband & got to see him die, I can just keep going & going on this. Simply put, it's just harder to be a woman than a man. That's it! If some atheists or someone is talking about sexism in Buddhism, most of the time they are referring to this. Hey, I don't know about other countries, but in this country, you don't insult motherhood! You don't insult mothers, unless you want to start a fight or even die, you just don't insult someone else's mothers! I also know for a fact that patricide & matricide is considered a grave sin in Buddhism. So no, motherhood isn't a demeaning position like how sexist westerners like to describe it to be.
In many Buddhist sects, women can be monks. Women can achieve nippana just like men, thy just start up from a rockier position. That other user claimed Buddhism said women got to reborn as men to achieve nippana, that sounds a lot like what Jainism would say. Buddhism doesn't say that, unless it's some sect I am not aware of, but women have the same change & the same right as men to achieve nippana.
So yeah, draw your own conclusion here.
Since I live in a country full of Buddhists, is it true that Buddhism is a least sexist religion? Pretty much, depends on what aspect you want to know. As a day to day life? We're not sexist, we are all in here suffer from karma, dukkha & all, born to age, age to sick, sick to die, death is a journey with no return yadeeyada all the same for men women children young & old blah blah blah, no differences here.
In rituals? Besides telling women to sit in a way that she won't showing her vagina to everybody? Unless you think that's sexist, I just think that's a service to the women themselves. Well, there's also the other 1 saying women can't directly touch monks because monks are also human & can be aroused & touching is considered a seduction. I can see why this rule was made, unless you think it's too extreme. But hey, some Buddhist monks live in seclusion for years or even decades, it's not like they get to see women all the time, again, I can see why this rule was made.
The teachings? Before I get to that point, let me talk about a book I've read for a bit. In highschool, I've read a book called "From the Land of Green Ghosts" written by a Burmese guerrilla fighter about his life before he seek refuge & became an English citizen. In that book, he used to dated a Buddhist woman back when he was studying in Rangoon. He asked her is it true that Buddhism sees women to be inferior to men. She told him that it's too complicated to explain. Well guess what? I can explain & I can make it simple, too!
In the cycle of samsara, women are indeed inferior to men. Why not? It's true! Women are inferior to men! Now here's why!
Women have more dukkha than men. That means there are more things women have to put up with in all of their lives than men. Got to look good to impress people, fashion, PMS, risks of getting pregnant in a time where she doesn't want to, pain of pregnancy, child labour, raising kids, living in a sexually unequal culture, burden of picking the right husband or being forced to marry men whom she barely knew, valued for the ability to give birth, live longer than her husband & got to see him die, I can just keep going & going on this. Simply put, it's just harder to be a woman than a man. That's it! If some atheists or someone is talking about sexism in Buddhism, most of the time they are referring to this. Hey, I don't know about other countries, but in this country, you don't insult motherhood! You don't insult mothers, unless you want to start a fight or even die, you just don't insult someone else's mothers! I also know for a fact that patricide & matricide is considered a grave sin in Buddhism. So no, motherhood isn't a demeaning position like how sexist westerners like to describe it to be.
In many Buddhist sects, women can be monks. Women can achieve nippana just like men, thy just start up from a rockier position. That other user claimed Buddhism said women got to reborn as men to achieve nippana, that sounds a lot like what Jainism would say. Buddhism doesn't say that, unless it's some sect I am not aware of, but women have the same change & the same right as men to achieve nippana.
So yeah, draw your own conclusion here.
That other user claimed Buddhism said women got to reborn as men to achieve nippana...
I did not say that this was a belief within Buddhism as a whole (nor did the other person who mentioned this). I said that it was something, historically speaking, some sects have believed. This source says that Pure Land is one of them: buddhism.about.com/od/becoming… Wikipedia has a bit on this point too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in…
I did not say that this was a belief within Buddhism as a whole (nor did the other person who mentioned this). I said that it was something, historically speaking, some sects have believed. This source says that Pure Land is one of them: buddhism.about.com/od/becoming… Wikipedia has a bit on this point too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in…
I have to keep remember that when westerners speak about "Buddhism" they mean the "Dalai Lama sect"
Yes, the Dalai Lama sect, I've heard they have some restrictions for women but didn't get into details about it. People in this country does not follow Dalai Lama, they see him as just another Buddhist monk, not a religious leader. Although, here's a thing about the Tibetans, they are not really monks, they are also political figures of Tibet. The Tibetans warped Buddhism into feudalism thousands of years ago. I never get the fascination the westerners have to his sect, really. But I'm certain that even they know the words of the Buddha doesn't say it's meant for men, but it's meant for all. I know the mahayana went overboard on this with their concepts of bodhisattva.
Now here's something I can say about the lore & the part from Tripitaka. Yes, the Buddha did said women shouldn't be monks, but he eventually allowed it because Ananda asked him to think about it. Also, the rules regarding Bhikkuni, some of them were already made in the Buddha's time. Since Buddhism in this country didn't allow women to become Bhikkuni, so I am limited when it comes to the information on these rules for women. But from what I have gathered, these rules that were claimed to be made in the time of Buddha talked about women safety (aka. can't be alone for too long, must be accompanied when they want to go anywhere, can't sleep in the same room as bhikku, etc. etc.) & stuff women have to deal with (PMS & stuff). Since this country didn't allow women to become Bhikkuni, they said that in the lore, Bhikkuni were raped by bandits when they need to make journeys in the wilderness. I can't find any details on this, but monks here love to bring this up. But before you'll think women can't be monks, you are wrong. In this country, there is a special position for women who want to ordain, but this process is originally a Hindu tradition. So even if women can't put on the saffron robe, she can still wear a Hindu robe & act the same way monks do even if she doesn't need to uphold the bhikkuni rules.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Buddhism is sexist when some of these additional rules were made to protect women.
2 things about the site. I have a hard time translating the English terms created to describe Buddhist terms, they are hard to read. I even feel some of them is a misinterpretation.
Also, aren't "nuns" are Catholic term for women who are like priest assistants than being priestess themselves? Because bhikkuni still hold the same responsibilities & burdens as bhikku.
Yes, the Dalai Lama sect, I've heard they have some restrictions for women but didn't get into details about it. People in this country does not follow Dalai Lama, they see him as just another Buddhist monk, not a religious leader. Although, here's a thing about the Tibetans, they are not really monks, they are also political figures of Tibet. The Tibetans warped Buddhism into feudalism thousands of years ago. I never get the fascination the westerners have to his sect, really. But I'm certain that even they know the words of the Buddha doesn't say it's meant for men, but it's meant for all. I know the mahayana went overboard on this with their concepts of bodhisattva.
Now here's something I can say about the lore & the part from Tripitaka. Yes, the Buddha did said women shouldn't be monks, but he eventually allowed it because Ananda asked him to think about it. Also, the rules regarding Bhikkuni, some of them were already made in the Buddha's time. Since Buddhism in this country didn't allow women to become Bhikkuni, so I am limited when it comes to the information on these rules for women. But from what I have gathered, these rules that were claimed to be made in the time of Buddha talked about women safety (aka. can't be alone for too long, must be accompanied when they want to go anywhere, can't sleep in the same room as bhikku, etc. etc.) & stuff women have to deal with (PMS & stuff). Since this country didn't allow women to become Bhikkuni, they said that in the lore, Bhikkuni were raped by bandits when they need to make journeys in the wilderness. I can't find any details on this, but monks here love to bring this up. But before you'll think women can't be monks, you are wrong. In this country, there is a special position for women who want to ordain, but this process is originally a Hindu tradition. So even if women can't put on the saffron robe, she can still wear a Hindu robe & act the same way monks do even if she doesn't need to uphold the bhikkuni rules.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Buddhism is sexist when some of these additional rules were made to protect women.
2 things about the site. I have a hard time translating the English terms created to describe Buddhist terms, they are hard to read. I even feel some of them is a misinterpretation.
Also, aren't "nuns" are Catholic term for women who are like priest assistants than being priestess themselves? Because bhikkuni still hold the same responsibilities & burdens as bhikku.
I have to keep remember that when westerners speak about "Buddhism" they mean the "Dalai Lama sect"
A lot of them do, but ironically they often have a poor understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama's role within Buddhism. But I'd also say that you have a talent for simplification and are ignoring the popularity of Zen in the US.
You seem to generally think I said women can't be nuns/monks, etc., when I was pretty specific that this is true in the context of certain periods in history and some sects. I'm also aware of that argument for why the rules for nuns are different, but it was tangential to my argument, so I didn't see any point in mentioning.
Also, aren't "nuns" are Catholic term for women who are like priest assistants than being priestess themselves?
Priest assistants? No. Nuns are the female counterpart to monks in Catholicism, so this is why bhikkuni is usually translated to nun in English. It's also easier than saying "female monk."
A lot of them do, but ironically they often have a poor understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama's role within Buddhism. But I'd also say that you have a talent for simplification and are ignoring the popularity of Zen in the US.
You seem to generally think I said women can't be nuns/monks, etc., when I was pretty specific that this is true in the context of certain periods in history and some sects. I'm also aware of that argument for why the rules for nuns are different, but it was tangential to my argument, so I didn't see any point in mentioning.
Also, aren't "nuns" are Catholic term for women who are like priest assistants than being priestess themselves?
Priest assistants? No. Nuns are the female counterpart to monks in Catholicism, so this is why bhikkuni is usually translated to nun in English. It's also easier than saying "female monk."
Hmm...
Well zen is a Japanese sect. I know people there love the Zen thinking, and at the same time use the Ikko Ikki & the Sohei to denounce Buddhism in general as a peaceful religion. I find how people there use the term "zen" so loosely to be rather distasteful. But I am not a Japanese so I have no reasons to be concern over that, my concern would be how this popularity in the west resulted in statues in various temples & historical sites turn out missing & rediscovered to be in the black market or someone's living room on the other side of the planet. But isn't mahayana that's actually big in the west? Why else would plenty of Americans believe the fat guy to be the Buddha?
I pointed out that this country didn't allow women to become Bhikkuni. I didn't want you to come to a conclusion that the Sangha here are sexist or that women can't be monks.
So I read the wikipedia, it led to me another problem regarding English misinterpretation. So nuns are equal to priests? Yet there's a part talking about Buddhism being misogynists. Do you remember the samsara I talked about that men is higher in the circle than women? The misinterpretation that led you to think Buddhism to be misogynistic is due to the fact people in the west do not believe in reincarnation or how it even works. Just because you're a woman in life doesn't mean you have to be a woman in the afterlife. In the cycle of samsara, men are higher because they have less dukkha than women. So if a woman commit good deeds much enough, she will be reborn into a man. So therefore, "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa"are all men. It doesn't mean they were men in life, they may be women in life, but they became men in the afterlife. So if you know what is anatta, sexuality is not a concern, so the discussion whether it is misogynistic or not that these deities are all men is irrelevant. If you've read about the Budddhist intepretation of heaven, there are 2 realms, "the formed state" and "the formless state" the formless state are beyond the realm of these deities, your goal is not to become a "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa", but to leave the cycle entirely, so what gender you are isn't important or deserve to be a matter of discussion.
I am not happy of the cherry picking attitude that seems to be all over the place right now. So you called her "Sujata" I am surprised to see how brief the entire story is. So just because Sujata is a "slave wife" she's just a baby machine? Nah, she had her own teachings on how to be a good mother. If anything, Sujata is an important figure on how to live a secular life as a woman & still achieve higher understandings of Buddhism. I know her story exist in the lore, then why is it that nobody bothers to tell her story into the west? Because according to wikipedia, she's just an example on how Buddhism is sexist. I would blame your scholars & translators as sexist themselves. Or should I be happy that at least wikipedia bother to say motherhood is a valued activity? I thought I was clear enough to say that in this country, you don't insult someone else's mothers.
Yes, marriage is just a celebration, not a religious practice. If you wants to know, there is nothing wrong is a woman wants to marry another woman, or a man to marry another man for that matter. Only the rich marry, the poor will simply move in & spend the rest of their days together. So there, I've just answered your question on gay marriage & Buddhism. (I know you didn't ask, but I just want to answer it anyway). Yes, reaching nippana is a higher goal than raising a family. If you want to talk about the lore, Siddhartha was forced to marry his cousin because that's a Hindu tradition for the Kshatriya caste. Same goes for Nanda, none of them married out of love, but of duty as stated in Hinduism. I thought the Americans believe you must only marry out of love. Then why are you denouncing Nanda & Siddhartha for not wanting to marry women they didn't love? If anything, women they don't even know?
The Buddha did said many things in his life, he also said not to believe in anything, unless you tested it. I may say I don't like how the west treat everything like test subjects, but I can understand it's the how people there perceive the world. Remember that Buddhism was founded in 6th century BC India. A place where women are forced to marry since she's 7 & they have to commit suicide when their husbands die. Buddhism, just like Jainism, they are revoltionary at the time, so much so the Hindu hates them (and they hate Buddhism with fiery passion, I don't know why some westerners love to say Islam destroyed Buddhism in India). Sexist concepts exist due to the environment they are in, they did their best to pave way for women equality. Do not take the words of scholars to the heart, see if it's true first.
Sorry, it's a bit too long. The wikipedia infuriates me so I feel like I need to clarify all the so called "evidences".
Well zen is a Japanese sect. I know people there love the Zen thinking, and at the same time use the Ikko Ikki & the Sohei to denounce Buddhism in general as a peaceful religion. I find how people there use the term "zen" so loosely to be rather distasteful. But I am not a Japanese so I have no reasons to be concern over that, my concern would be how this popularity in the west resulted in statues in various temples & historical sites turn out missing & rediscovered to be in the black market or someone's living room on the other side of the planet. But isn't mahayana that's actually big in the west? Why else would plenty of Americans believe the fat guy to be the Buddha?
I pointed out that this country didn't allow women to become Bhikkuni. I didn't want you to come to a conclusion that the Sangha here are sexist or that women can't be monks.
So I read the wikipedia, it led to me another problem regarding English misinterpretation. So nuns are equal to priests? Yet there's a part talking about Buddhism being misogynists. Do you remember the samsara I talked about that men is higher in the circle than women? The misinterpretation that led you to think Buddhism to be misogynistic is due to the fact people in the west do not believe in reincarnation or how it even works. Just because you're a woman in life doesn't mean you have to be a woman in the afterlife. In the cycle of samsara, men are higher because they have less dukkha than women. So if a woman commit good deeds much enough, she will be reborn into a man. So therefore, "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa"are all men. It doesn't mean they were men in life, they may be women in life, but they became men in the afterlife. So if you know what is anatta, sexuality is not a concern, so the discussion whether it is misogynistic or not that these deities are all men is irrelevant. If you've read about the Budddhist intepretation of heaven, there are 2 realms, "the formed state" and "the formless state" the formless state are beyond the realm of these deities, your goal is not to become a "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa", but to leave the cycle entirely, so what gender you are isn't important or deserve to be a matter of discussion.
I am not happy of the cherry picking attitude that seems to be all over the place right now. So you called her "Sujata" I am surprised to see how brief the entire story is. So just because Sujata is a "slave wife" she's just a baby machine? Nah, she had her own teachings on how to be a good mother. If anything, Sujata is an important figure on how to live a secular life as a woman & still achieve higher understandings of Buddhism. I know her story exist in the lore, then why is it that nobody bothers to tell her story into the west? Because according to wikipedia, she's just an example on how Buddhism is sexist. I would blame your scholars & translators as sexist themselves. Or should I be happy that at least wikipedia bother to say motherhood is a valued activity? I thought I was clear enough to say that in this country, you don't insult someone else's mothers.
Yes, marriage is just a celebration, not a religious practice. If you wants to know, there is nothing wrong is a woman wants to marry another woman, or a man to marry another man for that matter. Only the rich marry, the poor will simply move in & spend the rest of their days together. So there, I've just answered your question on gay marriage & Buddhism. (I know you didn't ask, but I just want to answer it anyway). Yes, reaching nippana is a higher goal than raising a family. If you want to talk about the lore, Siddhartha was forced to marry his cousin because that's a Hindu tradition for the Kshatriya caste. Same goes for Nanda, none of them married out of love, but of duty as stated in Hinduism. I thought the Americans believe you must only marry out of love. Then why are you denouncing Nanda & Siddhartha for not wanting to marry women they didn't love? If anything, women they don't even know?
The Buddha did said many things in his life, he also said not to believe in anything, unless you tested it. I may say I don't like how the west treat everything like test subjects, but I can understand it's the how people there perceive the world. Remember that Buddhism was founded in 6th century BC India. A place where women are forced to marry since she's 7 & they have to commit suicide when their husbands die. Buddhism, just like Jainism, they are revoltionary at the time, so much so the Hindu hates them (and they hate Buddhism with fiery passion, I don't know why some westerners love to say Islam destroyed Buddhism in India). Sexist concepts exist due to the environment they are in, they did their best to pave way for women equality. Do not take the words of scholars to the heart, see if it's true first.
Sorry, it's a bit too long. The wikipedia infuriates me so I feel like I need to clarify all the so called "evidences".
Eh, I have to disagree that Zen is a Japanese sect. Yes, it's the dominant sect in Japan and Suzuki is the main person who helped popularize it in the US, but it began in China and also spread to Korea. The couple of Zen groups I know in my area both come from Korean traditions.
Also, Zen is a Mahayana tradition. When you become a Zen monk, you take the same vows as any other Mahayana sect.
So nuns are equal to priests?
No. Nuns are equal to monks, who are not the same as priests. Catholicism doesn't have a role for women equal to priests (which *is* sexist and partly why Buddhism is often better in comparison). And historically nuns haven't always been equal to monks, though the role is, as I said, generally analogous.
The misinterpretation that led you to think Buddhism to be misogynistic is due to the fact people in the west do not believe in reincarnation or how it even works.
Please read my post again. I have not once said that "Buddhism is misogynistic." Nothing I've done could be considered cherry-picking, as I've not used examples of sexism in Buddhism to support the conclusion that Buddhism as a whole is sexist. My claim has simply been that there is sexism within Buddhism. If you go looking for it in most religions, you'll find it, as sexism has historically been part of many cultures. So yes, I agree with your basic point that Buddhism was influenced by its cultural/historic context.
I will say that things like:
So if a woman commit good deeds much enough, she will be reborn into a man.
Sound incredibly sexist, no matter how you cut it. You're on the one hand saying that sex/gender is meaningless (which I understand is true according to Buddhist principles and makes plenty sense to me), but then saying "well, actually being born a man is better overall." If men are posited as superior, then that is by definition sexist. Sure, I can agree that biologically women have more shit to deal with, but a lot of the burdens women face are created by the culture. My view is that more equal distribution of the social burdens would make it so being a woman doesn't count against you. But that's my crazy Western socialist feminism creeping in lol.
Also, Zen is a Mahayana tradition. When you become a Zen monk, you take the same vows as any other Mahayana sect.
So nuns are equal to priests?
No. Nuns are equal to monks, who are not the same as priests. Catholicism doesn't have a role for women equal to priests (which *is* sexist and partly why Buddhism is often better in comparison). And historically nuns haven't always been equal to monks, though the role is, as I said, generally analogous.
The misinterpretation that led you to think Buddhism to be misogynistic is due to the fact people in the west do not believe in reincarnation or how it even works.
Please read my post again. I have not once said that "Buddhism is misogynistic." Nothing I've done could be considered cherry-picking, as I've not used examples of sexism in Buddhism to support the conclusion that Buddhism as a whole is sexist. My claim has simply been that there is sexism within Buddhism. If you go looking for it in most religions, you'll find it, as sexism has historically been part of many cultures. So yes, I agree with your basic point that Buddhism was influenced by its cultural/historic context.
I will say that things like:
So if a woman commit good deeds much enough, she will be reborn into a man.
Sound incredibly sexist, no matter how you cut it. You're on the one hand saying that sex/gender is meaningless (which I understand is true according to Buddhist principles and makes plenty sense to me), but then saying "well, actually being born a man is better overall." If men are posited as superior, then that is by definition sexist. Sure, I can agree that biologically women have more shit to deal with, but a lot of the burdens women face are created by the culture. My view is that more equal distribution of the social burdens would make it so being a woman doesn't count against you. But that's my crazy Western socialist feminism creeping in lol.
Hmm.. seems there's a bit of a terminology problem here. When I say "mahayana" I mean those folks who worship bodhisattva. When I say Zen, I mean the thinking. To me, Zen is Japanese since Dogen is a zen master. Although he studied it in China, but he took it to Japan. So it seems I don't know the difference of priests & monks. To be honest, I call Buddhist monks "monks" because I've been told that's how you call them in English.
So maybe I should've clarify better I was talking about the wikipedia. The wikipedia article claimed Buddhism to be misogynistic due to all the beliefs regarding women to be inferior by cherry-picking from Tripitaka & the beliefs of Buddhist afterlife. If I have to be honest, I find it disgusting for it to use the term "slave wife". That's just... ugh... I am not saying that you are cherry picking or saying Buddhism is misogynistic, my problem is with the article itself, not you. I hope I have explain myself well enough this time
If you find the statement sexist, that means you don't understand the concept of Anatta. So, you brought up biology, let's focus on that for a bit. It is true that many cultures all over the world represses women. Yes, you understand correctly when I said that sex & gender is meaningless. Because it is, I don't know that if I say something like "the body is not yours" will you understand what I'm saying. Even if the humanity wipe out all the sexist cultures, women will still be inferior to men according to the cycle of samsara because, like you said, biologically women have more shit to deal with. Women will still suffer from stuff like PMS, mood swings, pregnancy, labour, fashion, etc. etc.
That doesn't mean I or any Buddhist men have to hate women. I remembered I said women simply start from a rockier position & that's all what it is. You saw in that wikipedia article that husbands have to respect their wives & motherhood is a "valuable activity". There are no good reasons to insult women for being women what so ever. I even stated multiple times that in this country, you don't insult someone else's mothers, you just don't.
Now back to the belief of afterlife
Even men can be born to women, women can be born to men, we all have the same chances here. I don't see why is it sexist. If you find that women can't be "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa", but the point of nippana is to be higher than these deities so it's not even worth talking about. If you want to talk about mahayana, Guanyin is a woman, although I've heard some mahayana Buddhists said she's a male deity who choose to appear as a woman.
Now I will go into great details which expands on the notion of "Your body is not yours".
These "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa". They have been women before, I don't see anything sexist about it. It's not like "Okay, I'm a guy & I'm going to die soon, I will be the king of the gods now". It's gonna take a lot reincarnations to even to become any of these deities. Plenty of time being men, women, animals, microbes, parasites, while being these animals, they will have plenty of time being males or females in those species, why bother with what gender you are as a human? Even with sexist cultures, why would you let that bother you? The Buddha also stated everything starts at the mind (maybe it is translated into something else in English) It only matters on how you perceive things around you. Why do you choose to let sexist cultures bother you? Why not choose to work around or work out of it?
So maybe I should've clarify better I was talking about the wikipedia. The wikipedia article claimed Buddhism to be misogynistic due to all the beliefs regarding women to be inferior by cherry-picking from Tripitaka & the beliefs of Buddhist afterlife. If I have to be honest, I find it disgusting for it to use the term "slave wife". That's just... ugh... I am not saying that you are cherry picking or saying Buddhism is misogynistic, my problem is with the article itself, not you. I hope I have explain myself well enough this time
If you find the statement sexist, that means you don't understand the concept of Anatta. So, you brought up biology, let's focus on that for a bit. It is true that many cultures all over the world represses women. Yes, you understand correctly when I said that sex & gender is meaningless. Because it is, I don't know that if I say something like "the body is not yours" will you understand what I'm saying. Even if the humanity wipe out all the sexist cultures, women will still be inferior to men according to the cycle of samsara because, like you said, biologically women have more shit to deal with. Women will still suffer from stuff like PMS, mood swings, pregnancy, labour, fashion, etc. etc.
That doesn't mean I or any Buddhist men have to hate women. I remembered I said women simply start from a rockier position & that's all what it is. You saw in that wikipedia article that husbands have to respect their wives & motherhood is a "valuable activity". There are no good reasons to insult women for being women what so ever. I even stated multiple times that in this country, you don't insult someone else's mothers, you just don't.
Now back to the belief of afterlife
Even men can be born to women, women can be born to men, we all have the same chances here. I don't see why is it sexist. If you find that women can't be "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa", but the point of nippana is to be higher than these deities so it's not even worth talking about. If you want to talk about mahayana, Guanyin is a woman, although I've heard some mahayana Buddhists said she's a male deity who choose to appear as a woman.
Now I will go into great details which expands on the notion of "Your body is not yours".
These "the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One", "the Universal Monarch", "the King of Gods", "the King of Death" or "Brahmaa". They have been women before, I don't see anything sexist about it. It's not like "Okay, I'm a guy & I'm going to die soon, I will be the king of the gods now". It's gonna take a lot reincarnations to even to become any of these deities. Plenty of time being men, women, animals, microbes, parasites, while being these animals, they will have plenty of time being males or females in those species, why bother with what gender you are as a human? Even with sexist cultures, why would you let that bother you? The Buddha also stated everything starts at the mind (maybe it is translated into something else in English) It only matters on how you perceive things around you. Why do you choose to let sexist cultures bother you? Why not choose to work around or work out of it?
View all replies
Pastafarianism.
I'd say atheism… no obligation whatsoever, granted christians would likely argue it isn't a religion
Actually, loony-toon fundy Christians often try to argue that Atheism is a religion, which it isn't. A simple disbelief in God/s does not a religion make...
Didn't mean religion… can't remember the word for it…
it's a worldview.
That the term I was looking for…
i use it interchangeably with the original german weltanschauung.
not a religion
I know… I meant theology or something, can't remember the word for it
None.
We still have a lot of men trying to rule over women.
We still have a lot of men trying to rule over women.
Cowardice, thy name is i-stamp. 
I don't know what you mean by 'sexist'. Sometimes the world seems to be used for the mere recognition that two different sexes exist, and that they are better suited to specialist roles, serving the maintenance of a civilised and stable society.
Christianity was an improvement on Judaism, in terms of the dignity given to women. Orthodox Jewish men apparently include among their morning prayers thanks to god for not making them a woman. That is hardly very nice! Islam was probably a step backwards from Christianity, imposing the veil and permitting polygamy (which I would deem demeaning to women, who are obliged to share a husband). But Islam was supposedly a step-up from pagan Arabian culture.
Christianity was an improvement on Judaism, in terms of the dignity given to women. Orthodox Jewish men apparently include among their morning prayers thanks to god for not making them a woman. That is hardly very nice! Islam was probably a step backwards from Christianity, imposing the veil and permitting polygamy (which I would deem demeaning to women, who are obliged to share a husband). But Islam was supposedly a step-up from pagan Arabian culture.
Jews.
Depends what you think sexism is.
