Renee Rabinowitz
Renee Rabinowitz, a retired lawyer whose family fled Nazi-occupied Belgium when she was a child, was settled into her aisle seat on an El Al flight from the U.S. to Israel, her adopted country, after visiting family members in New York.
Soon her assigned seatmate, a middle-aged Hasidic Jew, showed up. He had a brief conversation with the flight attendant in Hebrew, whereupon the flight attendant offered Ms. Rabinowitz a “better” seat farther forward in the cabin. She reluctantly agreed to move.
But when the flight attendant affirmed that the request to move was because the Hasidic man had requested it, she was disturbed. Why should she be asked to move because it was against the religious scruples of some man to sit next to her? You can read the whole story here: “She Was Asked to Switch Seats. Now She’s Charging El Al With Sexism.”
Being asked to switch seats on an airplane may seem like a minor thing. But the question remains: Why should she, a woman, be asked to move to satisfy the religious beliefs of a man? If his beliefs forbid him from having contact with a woman, isn’t it up to him to take responsibility for the consequences of those beliefs? Shouldn’t he be the one to move, or to forego the flight altogether if no one else wants to move to accommodate his strict—and rather rigid—religious beliefs?
Are women really second-class citizens in the eyes of God, so that they must always yield to men when there is a conflict of convenience or of religious principles? After all, Ms. Rabinowitz was an observant Jew herself. In fact, she was the widow of a Rabbi. But she did not interpret the Torah in such a strictly literal way as the man who insisted that the Torah prohibited him from sitting next to an 81-year-old grandmother.
We could go through an extensive survey of religious maltreatment of women over the ages. But we’re not going to do that. Instead, here’s a simple principle:
One way to judge the level of spiritual development and enlightenment of a particular religious group is to look at how it treats women.
Perhaps that’s a bit provocative.
But I do believe it’s a valid test.
The lower the status of women in a particular religious group, and the worse they are treated, the less spiritual that religious group is. And the higher the status of women in a particular religious group, up to full equality with men, and the better that group treats women, the more spiritual that religious group is.
Mind you, this is not the only test of a religious group’s spiritual level. But I do believe it is a fairly accurate one.
Let’s look at it a little more closely.
God originally created man and woman equal
Many conservative Christians, not to mention conservatives of many other religions, believe that God created woman to serve man, and man to rule over woman. For Christians and Jews who look to the book of Genesis, that’s based especially on the story of Eve being created out of Adam in Genesis 2:
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” . . .
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:18, 20–22, italics added)
It’s also based on the so-called curse on Eve in Genesis 3:
To the woman he [God] said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16, italics added)
But those who interpret these stories to mean that God wants women to be subservient to men are skipping over the first story of the creation of man and woman, in which they are both created together, and both are created in the image and likeness of God:
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image; in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26–27)
In other words, God originally created man and woman equal. It is only as the story of Creation continues that woman first becomes a helper to man in Genesis 2, and then becomes subject to man in Genesis 3, after they both sinned against God.
For a fuller explanation of this progression from the original God-created equality of the sexes to a downward progression of increasing inequality between man and woman, please see these two articles:
- What are the Roles of Men and Women toward Each Other and in Society?
- Man, Woman, and the Two Creation Stories of Genesis
Gender inequality resulted from human sin and error
Here is the short version:
In the earliest and highest spiritual state of humanity, man and woman were fully equal partners, created together to express the image and likeness of God. But as humanity fell farther and farther away from the pristine state in which God originally created us, the relationship between man and woman become more and more unequal. The status of women sank lower and lower, and women were treated worse and worse.
As shown in the articles linked above, this progression is clear in the first few chapters of Genesis. And the deterioration of the position and treatment of women in society continues right through the narrative of the Hebrew Bible. As the story progresses, men are allowed to marry multiple women, divorce them for any cause, and subject them to harsh discipline.
Women had no such rights in relation to men, although there were some protections for women. And there were also many women who played decisive roles in the Bible story, despite their lower social status. See: “Is the Bible a Book about Men? What about Women?”
Jesus Christ and the reversal of the downward trend
It is only in the New Testament that women begin to regain some of the dignity and equality that they had originally been given by God. No, they did not gain full equality. But Jesus’ conversations with women show that he regarded them as having the same claim to dignity and to spiritual understanding as men. And the Apostle Paul stated explicitly:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28, italics added)
It is true that humankind has yet to achieve a society in which there is full equality between women and men. And yet, through many ups and downs, we can see in our history since the time of Jesus, and especially in the last few centuries, that the position of women in society has gradually risen. And today, in most parts of the world there is sustained movement toward more and more equality and dignity for women.
Further, the parts of the world where women are treated the worst are also where humanity is at its worst and most oppressive. In other words, the lower the spiritual state of a human society, the worse is its treatment of women.
After all, true spirituality is about loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and loving our neighbor as ourselves, as Jesus taught (see Matthew 22:37–40). And women are our neighbor just as much as men are.
Jesus Christ raised our understanding of the Scriptures to a higher, more spiritual level. He was the light of God come into the world. And he reversed the downward trend of humanity that had started all the way back in Genesis 2.
Yes, it’s taking us an awfully long time to fully accept the spiritual principles he taught, and to base our society upon them. It’s been 2,000 years, and we’re still working on it!
But I believe that the status of women has been improving in recent centuries, and especially in recent decades, precisely because humanity is finally beginning to understand and accept the spirit of Christianity as it was originally taught by Jesus in the Gospels. For more on this new era of true Christianity, see:
- Is the World Coming to an End? What about the Second Coming?
- Christianity is Dead. Long Live Christianity!
The status of women and the spiritual status of religious groups
It would be time-consuming and tedious to go through each sect of every religion analyzing their treatment of women in comparison with their doctrinal position on the religious spectrum. But here’s the general picture:
- Religious groups that are very strict, literal, and conservative in their interpretation of scripture and in their doctrinal stances commonly believe that God has ordained men to rule over women, and women to be subservient to men. They therefore tend to give women a low status both in their religious organizations and in society generally.
- Religious groups that are more mainstream, moderate, and flexible in their interpretation of scripture and in their doctrinal stances commonly retain many traditional gender roles between men and women, but see women as having a more equal status, even if they may still be thought of as being helpers for men.
- Religious groups that interpret scripture in highly symbolic and spiritual ways, rather than literally, and that focus on inner spiritual development rather than on strict codes of outward behavior, tend to see man and woman as equally powerful manifestations of the nature of God. They therefore tend to give men and women equal status both in their religious practices and in human society generally, even as they continue to celebrate and value the God-given differences between men and women.
Of course, these are only general rules. We humans, and our human groups and organizations, come in a great variety of forms, some of which defy the general trends.
However, if you simply look at the various religious groups, organizations, sects, and denominations around the world, not only in Christianity but in all of the religions of humanity, you will find that the above generalizations do generally hold true.
And I, for one, am happy that the spiritual state of humanity is now on the rise. I am glad that women and men are finally moving back toward the full equality and dignity for which God created us. It is a state of humanity in which every one of us, both man and woman, can make our full contribution to society, and achieve our highest integrity and joy in our relationships with one another—each in our own unique way.
The uniqueness of our contributions to society and to one another is, I believe, why God originally created us male and female, both in the image and likeness of God.
For further reading:
- What are the Roles of Men and Women toward Each Other and in Society?
- Man, Woman, and the Two Creation Stories of Genesis
- Is the Bible a Book about Men? What about Women?
- “Wives, submit to your husbands.”
- The Mother of All the Living
- Curses or Consequences: Did God Really Curse Adam and Eve?
- How does Marriage Fit In with a Spiritual Life? Is There Marriage in Heaven?
Share this:
Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.
Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life 
Hi Lee,
Well, I know that if you take the Qur’an literally, which would be very wrong, men and women are definitely not equal. There are verses about women having to obey their husbands and even that men, as a last resort, could beat their wives, if it would save the family from falling apart. These ideas are competely unacceptable by today’s moral standards and there are millions of women in the Muslim world today who would not agree to this, Even many of those women who wear hijab. So, fundamentalism is a complete dead end, whether it’s Islam, Christianity or Judaism. I also don’t believe in “religious laws” – the Qur’an or Bible are not books of civil law, criminal law or administrative law. You can only get inspiration from religious texts, but if you start applying them literally you can get ISIS or Saudi Arabia as a result…
Hi Ozcan,
Yes, literalism at the conservative end of things is a problem common to all of the major religions of the world.
It also helps to understand that many of the ancient religious text were written at a time when the cultures they were addressed to were very materialistic, and not at all spiritual. And for such cultures, a system of fairly rigid laws is necessary to keep the people in line. Otherwise they would break out into all sorts of highly destructive behavior.
However, when a culture progresses to a less materialistic and more open-minded and thoughtful phase of its existence, it can leave behind the strict systems of laws that are necessary primarily to keep very unspiritual, self-centered, and violent cultures in check.
As for ISIS and Saudi Arabia, I think those are fine examples of governmental or quasi-governmental groups using religion as a pretext to gain and maintain power and wealth for themselves.
The Saudi royals, and many others in Saudi Arabia, have become fabulously wealthy through maintaining their strict hierarchical system, for which a conservative, literal interpretation of the Quran serves as a great support.
And ISIS seems to me to be about pure power, and really to have very little to do with religion at all, even if it is a nominally Muslim movement. Basically, ISIS is what happens when criminals get hold of the governmental and religious system of a region.
Hi Lee,
I have a question even though your really fantastic article went in depth and answered a lot of my questions and even what to look out for but nonetheless I just wanted to ask how I noticed how some of my local churches seem to be very conservative and strict with their dress code in order to even worship? Like how women and girls must wear long dresses or skirts and no jewelry like gold crosses or earrings and are prohibited to wear pants or shorts? Men and boys must wear suits or suit attire. I was always curious to why this is? Like I notice how some women wear long skirts or dresses and never wear pants at all and even make their young daughters who are just toddlers wear skirts to even girls playing a sport like soccer they wear skirts no matter what? And it also seems like they never cut their hair either and is super long? They also say if you have a tattoo then you’re going straight to hell as well and how women must be “modest” and follow “biblical instruction”?
But why would any of that matter if we are not being a good neighbor and being useful? How does wearing a long skirt, no jewelry, and not cutting one’s hair help spiritually if we aren’t actually performing usefulness and being a good neighbor? It just seems like some of those people look down on others who don’t dress “holy” as they say? Like a woman wearing as simple as jeans and a plain regular t shirt would be considered “unholy”? I’m not cutting on anyone who wants to live like that, if that’s how some people think they should live then as long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone then by all means go right ahead. But why judge and condemn others and deny someone who wants to worship? Jesus went out and talked and helped everyone, he didn’t judge them or wouldn’t talk to them. I wonder is this because people are caught up in the Old Testament? It seems certain groups will say we must follow everything in the Bible to the T but yet leave out sacrifices or rituals so it seems very cherry picked of what’s enforced and what’s not?
Obviously going to church with profanity on the shirt isn’t good but as long as what everyone wears is respectful and decent, just normal clothing, then why the strict rules? Why would they not allow a homeless person or a woman wearing pants and a t shirt to worship and call that a “sin” or a “unmoddest lifestyle”?
Thank you Lee
Hi Sam,
The answers to the Christianity StackExchange question you linked covered it fairly well. It’s funny that both answers were written by oldsters who miss the “good old days” when women wore dresses and men wore suits. The world has been going to hell in a handbasket for thousands of years due to the profligate youth. But somehow, we haven’t quite reached hell yet. 😉 And though there certainly is more sexual looseness today than there was in earlier centuries, under the surface a lot of the same things that happen today were happening back then also, but hidden away. Now at least it’s out in the open where we can see it and make a decision about whether or not it’s a good idea.
For those reading in, I deal with tattoos in this article: “Is Getting Tattoos a Sin against God?”
What’s missing not only in the two answers on Christianity StackExchange, but in the churches that adhere to a strict and modest dress code, is that the rules in the Bible about dress were made within a specific cultural context that had particular norms when it came to dress for women and men. And in reality, women’s and men’s clothing in Bible times was much more similar than they are today. Men didn’t wear suits and ties. Women didn’t wear dresses. Both wore tunics and robes if they were part of the ordinary classes, but women’s tended to be longer and cover more, and also to have more color.
What’s really going on here is that these rules are about respecting the customs of the culture when it comes to dress, and not wearing clothing that is considered immodest or even shocking in one’s own culture.
If the rules had been made before the Fall, there would be no dress code at all because people didn’t wear clothes. But as clothes became necessary, mostly due to people’s minds and hearts becoming corrupted, various cultures required more or less clothing to be considered modest and respectful in that culture. In some indigenous cultures even today, “modest” clothing is nothing more than a covering for the genitals, in both men and women. In others, the pelvic area should be covered with some sort of skirt or loincloth, but the rest is uncovered. Next comes the requirement for women to also cover their breasts. And it continues from there.
What’s “modest”? It’s whatever is considered “modest” in that particular culture. In the Pope’s prescription for what women should wear as quoted in the second C.SE answer, women’s dresses are supposed to cover the arms at least up to the elbows, and have skirts that go below the knees. But then accommodation had to be made due to current fashions, in which getting a sleeved dress could prove quite difficult! Of course, in some conservative Muslim countries even the Pope’s allowances for women’s skin to show would be considered shockingly immodest, and the Pope would be considered a rank libertine for allowing it! Meanwhile, some tribal cultures would be saying, “What’s all the fuss about? Our women don’t cover everything up like that, and nobody’s offended!”
So again, it all depends on what’s considered decent and modest in a particular culture. Even the Pope doesn’t say that men and women should wear tunics and robes. His prescriptions, like those of other churches, basically says, “Wear what’s considered modest and respectful in our culture; and in church, wear what’s considered formal wear in the culture.” Outside church, men don’t go around wearing suits and ties unless they’re in a business setting. Even suits and ties themselves were originally designed to be “sexy” on men, but then they became normalized as formal wear.
Really, then, the rule is: “Wear clothing that respects the norms and standards of the particular culture you’re in, appropriate to the particular occasion.” Western women today commonly wear bikinis on the beach, and are perfectly comfortable, and nobody is offended. But if a woman were to wear that very same bikini to church, she would feel practically naked and very embarrassed, and the other people in church would be scandalized. In that culture a bikini is appropriate attire for the beach, but not for church.
Further, even though a bikini doesn’t cover very much, if she were to take off either piece on most Western beaches, she would be considered wildly immodest, and might even get arrested for indecent exposure. But if she were on a nude beach, she would be considered prudish and repressed if she wore either piece.
It all depends upon the particular culture and occasion. So: Don’t be offensive. Wear what’s appropriate to the culture and occasion.
Aside from climate, and protection in certain jobs and environments, the whole reason we must wear clothing is because people’s minds have become corrupted. What God created clean has become dirty in our minds. In other words, the need for clothing is a consequence of human evil and sin. This is tacitly recognized in the final line of the Pope’s statement in that C.SE answer: “She who follows these standards will not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.” A woman cannot be the occasion of sin in “others” (code for “men”) if those others don’t have dirty minds. And of course, women’s minds are no longer clean either. Women commit adultery just as much as men do. Otherwise, who would all those men commit adultery with?
In the highest heavens, Swedenborg says, where the people are fully regenerated and live in mutual love and innocence, everyone goes naked, and it is not “the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.” The men do appreciate the women’s beauty. But they have absolutely no interest in having intimate relations with anyone but their own wife. The very thought of having sex with anyone else turns them cold right to their bones. In that culture, no clothing is necessary because the minds of the people in that culture are clean and innocent.
There’s more that could be said on this issue, but I’ll just make one final point.
The idea that we must dress formally and modestly when coming before God is characteristic of churches and religions that think of God as high and mighty, living in a realm far above our earthly human affairs. In theological language, these churches and religions see God as transcendant.
But in churches and cultures where people wear ordinary street clothes when coming before God, God is seen as a human being living among us, and as a friend to us, right here with us in our ordinary lives. This is what those churches without formal dress codes are aiming for. They want to bring the Lord to ordinary people in their ordinary lives, and give them a sense of Jesus’ presence right with them. In theological language, these churches see God as immanent.
There’s nothing wrong with either one. Both seek to bring God into people’s lives. But each is aimed at people of different cultures and mindsets.
And of course, looking down on people who don’t conform to one’s own cultural standards in their dress is not a good thing. But people in conservative cultures tend to think in black-and-white ways, and to see their culture as proper culture.
(P.S. I made the fix to your comment that you requested.)
Hi Lee,
Very interesting! Thank you for the explanation and the reasoning and history behind clothing (which I never knew a suit was intended to be sexy before it became office attire!) and what the Bible actually says about dressing and the cultural context of it. It’s interesting how regarding the cultural context and it depends on that particular society of what’s deemed appropriate for the occasion which makes so much sense. A tribes attire will be completely different than a southern Baptist church or the Popes’ recommendation and Muslims’ attire. But none are wrong they are just adhering to their culture’s current standards for their occasions which again makes so much sense.
And also the different views on God, seeing God as transcendant or immanent really is interesting and helps a lot with understanding for those cultural differences and reasonings behind the why. When Swedenborg talks about how spirits of like minded people group together, this really shows how we are exactly like that on Earth as well! And how we can use our free will to make our choice on what society best suits our individual spirit. Which reminds me of a Swedenborg quote: “Auras that are in harmony join people together in response to the degree of their harmony, and auras that conflict repel people from each other in response to the degree of their discord.” – Other Planets 64
And regarding before the Fall and how in the highest Heavens angels are nude and live in mutual love and innocence, it brings to mind a funny Conan O’Brien episode when he visited Berlin. In the clip it shows the differences in perspectives regarding nudity how a lot of Germans see it as natural while the other perspective sees it as completely foreign and not being comfortable with it.
Thank you kindly again Lee!
Hi Sam,
Good thoughts.
I should add that there are reasons why some cultures and venues require people, especially women, to cover up almost their entire body, whereas others require little or no covering, and most are somewhere in between. But that’s a whole complex and fascinating topic of its own! Even in heaven, most angels do wear clothing. The clothing we wear, or don’t wear, does have a spiritual significance.
Hi Lee,
Thank you and absolutely, very fascinating! It’s amazing how clothing really is a complex topic and how in the spiritual world it brings a whole other layer of meaning and reflection of our character which is so cool. It’s not just a fashion statement anymore or for many other types of reasons but it’s reflecting who we are and our spiritual state!
Hi Sam,
Really, people already know that our clothing reflects who we are. Why else would goths dress goth, and hippies dress hippy? And I think you will probably agree with me that when a woman puts on a particular outfit for a particular occasion, she knows exactly what she’s doing. Likewise a man dressing for a job interview in a business setting (and women also these days). We do know that our clothing expresses our character and personality, and the image we want to project. Swedenborg just makes it explicit, and puts it into a spiritual context.
Hi Lee,
Very true! People definitely know that what we put on reflects who we are or want to portray we are. And that even reflects in the groups we hang around with as well, at least that was more the case in school and a little less so in college lol. But I don’t think a lot of people know the spiritual significance or the underlining reason why we are like that because of spiritual reasons and inflow. Yes there is some physical reasons like evolution but even that is created and guided by God and spirit. When bringing up the topic of clothing in the spiritual world, at least from my experience I either got that we wear white robes and greek style sandals or that we don’t have any body at all and are just free floating ball of consciousness and if you have clothing on than you’re just still attached to your lower earth ego. So when reading and learning about Swedenborg and even what the Bible actually says, not it being misinterpreted, was refreshing and is very true and right compared to what’s being pushed out there. Reminds me of the conversation Swedenborg had with ancient philosophers, “…Because they do not recognize the existence of this inflow, they convince themselves that nature is the source. They become materialists and eventually atheists.”