Jacqueline Tinetti
Professor J. Dubois
HRS 220
16. September 2004
Word count: 2,040
Outline
Rita Gross: Feminism and Religion, Chapter 3.
I. Feminist Study of Religion
A) Androgynous versus androcentric perspective
B) Barriers to Feminist Study
i) Belief in the lack of data
ii) disregard or use of existing data to validate/perpetuate
androcentric conclusions
II. Avenues of Feminist Study of Religion
A) Study women’s religious lives
B) Examine and investigate cultural norms/expectations of women
C) Study goddesses and other mythological females
III. Methodological Approaches to Feminist Study of Religion
A) Examine and consider women in each of the world’s religions
i) Strengths
ii) Limitations
B) Study religion developmentally
i) Strengths
ii) Limitations
C) Comparative study of religion and women
i) Strengths
ii) Limitations
IV. Feminist Study and Values
i) Empathy
V. Conclusion
1
Where Have All the Women Been?
The Challenge of Feminist Study of Religion
In Where Have All the Women Been, Rita Gross explores the challenges and
barriers of studying religion and women from a global, cross-cultural perspective.
In chapter 3 of Feminism and Religion, Gross argues that the questions and
relevance of women’s religious experience, and the impact of this experience on
our understanding of religion, are largely left unasked and uninvestigated. This
is due, in part, to the fact that “ …few feminists study religion globally in crosscultural perspective, and,…few scholars of comparative religion use feminist
methods” (Gross, p.65).
Gross argues that there are two basic barriers to feminist study of religion. The
first is the belief that the information about women’s lives and roles needed for
study is simply not available.
Gross counters this first barrier by pointing out
that, while feminist scholarship today exists in relatively modest amounts, there
is a great deal of existing data about women to be found in androcentric
scholarship. That this existing data has been disregarded or been used and
interpreted to validate the androcentric perspective (that women’s lives are
unimportant, secondary actors in a patriarchal context) is, according to Gross,
the second barrier to feminist study of religion (Gross, p. 66). Gross points to
her own work in using existing data but reinterpreting it from an androgynous
perspective. In this way, she was able to reevaluate the extant androcentric
2
data about aboriginal women and religion and draw very different conclusions.
Rather than confirming the thesis that aboriginal women are considered profane
and therefore excluded from aboriginal religious life, Gross concluded that the
data supports the proposition that an aboriginal concept of the difference in
women’s and men’s sacred being underpins the exclusion of mixed male and
female participation in ceremonial functions and rituals (Gross,p.66-67).
At the crux of Gross’ treatment of feminist study and religion is the idea of the
androgynous perspective. Gross expounds on what this perspective is by
comparing and contrasting it against the andocentric perspective. The
androgynous perspective considers the experience and role of women just as
interesting and important to scholarship as the experience and role of men.
Scholarship and data gathered in the androcentric model is incomplete, as it
places the male role and experience as its subject and disregards or casts
women as objects in a patriarchal context. Although Gross does not specifically
define the terms “androcentric” and “androgynous”, I found it useful to consider
and bear in mind the following definitions from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: an·dro·cen·tric1
Function: adjective
dominated by or emphasizing masculine interests or a masculine point of view
Main Entry: an·drog·y·nous2
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin androgynus hermaphrodite, from Greek androgynos, from andr- + gynE
woman -- 1 : having the characteristics or nature of both male and female 2 a : neither
specifically feminine nor masculine <the androgynous pronoun them> b : suitable to or for
either sex <androgynous clothing>
1
2
“Androcentric.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2004. http://www.merriam-webster.com
“Androgynous." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2004. http://www.merriam-webster.com
3
For Gross, the feminist study of religion begins with the androgynous
perspective, which allows us to ask, who are we studying and why? Is
knowledge about half of the human experience sufficient? Who and what is
deemed interesting enough to study? Why? For Gross, the androgynous
perspective makes these questions not only possible, but fruitful for feminist
study of all disciplines including religion. As Gross puts it,
“…One commonly reads descriptions of religious events that affirm that a
certain ceremony is so important it must be attended by all-‘except women
and children.’ I didn’t question these kinds of statements for years, but
now I wonder how important the ceremony can be if only significantly less
than half the society is involved. One must also ask who interpreted this
ceremony as important despite its exclusion of women and children.
Perhaps the society itself operates with androcentric consciousness,
declaring this to be an important ceremony because of the fact that
women and children are not involved. Or the interpretation may reflect
the scholar’s own androcentric values instead” (Gross, p.67).
According to Gross, scholarship based on the androcentric perspective persists
in its diminution of women partly due to its focus and value on formal
hierarchical power and those that wield it (Gross, 68). By its lack of distinction
between power and authority, androcentric scholarship cannot accommodate a
view of women as anything but powerless in a patriarchal context, nor can it
accommodate religions where the principle of complementarity is present, that is
traditions where separate and distinct, but not necessarily unequal or disparate,
religious roles, authority, power and practice are accorded to males and females
(Gross, p.69).
4
Gross argues that androgynous study of the many male dominated religions can
shed new light on previous androcentric conclusions made about the role and
experience of men and women in religion. By using a wider and more
representative pool of informants, a balanced view of the power relationships
and authority structures at play is possible, and is better than one simply
composed of men (Gross, p.70).
Not only does it lead to more balanced and
informed scholarship, Gross asserts that androgynous study can recast the
landscape of scholarship as we know it. By exploring the parallel challenges
and barriers faced by feminist religious historians, Gross contends that what is
gained through androgynous study is an accurate and usable body of
scholarship. It is not enough to simply append the missing data about women.
According to Gross, feminist religious study strives to achieve scholarship in
three areas:
1. The study of women’s religious lives. For Gross, this means studying actual
women, and what they report about their experience, rather than studying the
cultural norms/expectations of women, or what (predominantly male)
commentators say about women’s lives. In short, feminist scholarship seeks
to study women as the subject.
2. Examine and investigate cultural norms about women.
Although
establishing women as the subject is critical, the cultural norms and
expectations for women cannot be ignored. According to Gross, the key task
5
for feminist scholarship in this area is in reconstructing interpretations
(Gross,p.84). She asserts that,
“ …one could rightly contend that it is impossible to study women’s
religious lives without also studying cultural norms about women and
femininity, since women’s lives will be deeply affected by those norms”
(Gross, p.84)
3. Study of Goddesses and other mythological females. Previously regarded
as aberrant and exotic in the panoply of the divine image, goddesses are now
firmly established as representations of the divine principle. The meaning
and significance of goddesses remains largely unexplored, particularly crossculturally (Gross, p. 86).
Next, Gross suggests three approaches by which feminist study can be
undertaken. The first method is to consider women within each of the world’s
religions. This approach provides an examination and analysis of each tradition
and women’s lives and roles within that tradition. Its limitations, according to
Gross, include that this method is often used to ‘fill in the blanks’, the gaps in
knowledge about women, in existing androcentric scholarship. Often, this
added knowledge is androcentric as well, adding little beyond additional
commentaries of men about women in the religious tradition discussed (Gross,
p.89).
The second approach is to examine religion developmentally, perhaps
chronologically. This approach would provide a greater opportunity to discuss
indigenous traditions than is currently typical in religious studies (Gross, p.94).
6
This approach benefits from concepts and classifications developed in other
disciplines, such as anthropology, to organize and discuss data. Feminist
developmental religious studies have also created political paradigms with which
to investigate religious life. Last, the developmental approach has also been
used to examine the phenomena of religious movements, and the various
religions and traditions within those movements (Gross, p.95).
The third approach is to study women and religion comparatively, and search for
patterns that emerge cross-culturally and inter-religiously.
By far the most
taunting of approaches in Gross’ estimation (p.96), it offers an avenue by which
meaning can emerge from the data in unexpected ways, and provide a means of
collecting and evaluating data beyond the confines of a particular hypothesis or
other interpretive predilection
Last, Gross discusses some significant issues relative to values and feminist
study. She revisits points made previously regarding the values of androgynous
versus androcentric scholarship, and the ability and license of scholars
“…to distinguish better from worse scholarship. Less complete,
less accurate scholarship is not as good as more accurate, more
compete scholarship. Furthermore, I see no grounds for on which
one could reasonably argue that the androcentric model of
humanity yields more complete and more accurate scholarship
than the androgynous model” (Gross, p.98) .
But is androgynous scholarship beyond criticism? Does it always result in more
complete, more accurate scholarship? For Gross, the answer is no. There are
7
in fact a number of feminist reconstructions of material that are, by her own
estimation, “…wrong, inappropriate, ill-conceived, illogical, or not based on a
reasonable reading of the data” (Gross,p.99). Yet, despite the shortcomings and
failures of some androgynous scholarship, in Gross’ view it remains the
fundamentally superior model for scholarship over the androcentric model.
For feminist androgynous study (as well as for androcentric scholarship), the
challenge of projecting value judgements on scholarship remains. She
discusses, in particular detail, the challenges of feminist scholars to study certain
religious practices or certain cultures and not conclude that certain epochs,
cultures or religious traditions are more or less desirable for women, or result in
too much patriarchy.
For Gross, the focus feminist study should be on method, i.e., critiquing
androcentric scholarship, rather than the culture or historical period being studied
(Gross, p.99). The evidence of patriarchy in a religious tradition or culture should
be reported, not editorialized upon. The method used to study should be
evaluated in terms of its efficacy of telling the whole story of the subject, rather
than critiquing the subject itself. Yet, given these considerations, Gross
concedes a problem still persists. The problem is that the values and cultural
predilections of feminist scholars can, and have, resulted in scholarship that is
critical of traditions and cultures themselves. This scholarship is of limited
value, as it fails to understand traditions and cultures within themselves, and
8
instead presents these traditions and cultures through the lens of scholar’s own
cultural values and perspective. Indeed, this kind of scholarship can be counterproductive inasmuch as it engenders defensiveness and hostility, rather than
deepening cross-cultural understanding (Gross, 100-101). The remedy, as
proposed by Gross, is empathy. According to her,
“…the ‘engaged scholar’ must first develop what objectivity is possible
and must treat all religions evenhandedly and with empathy…a well-trained
student of comparative religion also has some ethical responsibilities regarding
her knowledge. She needs to use knowledge to promote genuine pluralism in
our conflicted world” (Gross,101).
In Gross’ view, this will open up feminist scholarship to consider non-western
religious ideas and traditions and result in more robust, more complete and more
accurate scholarship.
In Where Have All the Women Been?, Gross continues to argue persuasively
about the merit of androgynous scholarship, and develops her argument to
include a discussion of the specific approaches feminist scholars can use to
more fully develop the androgynous body of scholarship. Importantly, she
concedes that even androgynous scholarship can, and does, result in flawed
theses and conclusions. However, Gross insists that while such flawed
scholarship may be an artifact of the androgynous method, it does not impugn
the superiority of the androgynous method itself over the androcentric model.
Underpinning this position is Gross’ belief that the androcentric model always
results in incomplete and less than accurate scholarship, while the androgynous
9
model may result in flawed scholarship. In Gross’ view, the scholar’s intent of
conducting androgynous scholarship cannot be faulted, however, his or her
results are not above such critique.
Gross also reiterates her belief that meaningful, more accurate and complete
scholarship requires empathy. She recognizes and explores the impact of the
scholar’s values and cultural predilections on scholarship, be it androcentric or
androgynous, and suggests some reasonable remedies and approaches to
address and mitigate the impact. Gross insists that scholars have ethical
responsibilities and a duty to use their scholarship as a means of promoting
pluralism in religious studies and to avoid scholarship that projects the values of
the scholar’s cultural or religious persuasion.
(Kathryn’s paper begins on the next page)
10
Kathryn Williams
HRS 220/Dubois
September 19, 2004
Total Word Count: 1764
Outline for Reading Analysis: Gross, Chapter 5
#1 Selective Summary

Overview of Main Claims

Gross’ First Claim: Societies Have Not Always Been Male-Dominated

Gross’ Second Claim: Patriarchy is “Technological” not “Biological”

Gross’ Third Claim: Western Monotheism Ended Goddess Worship

Review of Main Claims
#2 Evaluation

Critique of Gross’ Claim that Technology is Responsible for Male-Dominance Throughout History

Critique of Gross’ Statement that Historical Views on The Bible are Not Relevant to Modern
Interpretations
# 3 Wider Relevance

Knowing that Societies Have Not Always Been Male-Dominated is Empowering for the Modern
Feminist Movement

Most Relevance to Jews and Christians as Chapter took Western Perspective
Reading Response: Rita M. Gross, Feminism and Religion, Chapter Five
#1 Selective Summary
In Chapter Five of her book Feminism and Religion, Rita M. Gross addresses the question, “Have
men always dominated women?” (149). Gross’ answer is a resounding “No.” She arrives at this conclusion
based upon testing the Prepatriarchal Hypothesis by using a variety of historical and anthropological
sources. Once she has concluded that a patriarchal worldview is a relatively modern phenomenon, Gross
11
goes on to propose the reasons why men came to dominate women. Finally, Gross emphasizes the role that
patriarchy played in the creation of the monotheist, masculine God in Judaism and the impact of this
perspective on Christianity. Based upon my understanding of the reading, Gross’ goal is not merely to
inform her reader; she wants the findings discussed in her chapter to be “useful” (149) to the modern
feminist movement. It is important to note that Gross is careful to explain that her exploration of topics in
this chapter takes a primarily Western, “Eurocentric” viewpoint in terms of both the historical investigation
and the present-day impact of such investigation (150). For my selective summary, I will focus on three of
the main arguments Gross uses to prove her claims: Societies have not always been male-dominated;
technology, not biology, is responsible for the advent of male-dominance; and monotheism ended Godess
worship.
Gross’ Claim #1: Societies Have Not Always Been Male-Dominated
Gross believes that one of the driving forces in moving to a postpatriarchal society is to understand
the existence of prepatriarchal societies: “In so far as communities constitute themselves on the basis of
their remembered past, contemporary social change is more likely if memories are extended further into the
past” (151). The vast majority of Western history is male-dominated, and Gross is concerned that men and
women today will automatically believe that patriarchal society is the normal, proper social structure.
Gross, and many other scholars, have concluded that this view of history is inaccurate: “(P)atriarchy is not
inevitable and…male dominance is not somehow written into our genes” (151). Gross believes that “claims
for eternal male dominance make no sense and are not supported by contemporary anthropology and
archeology” (155).
Based upon the anthropological and archeological evidence, it is clear that early societies did not
“waste female productivity and intelligence in the way that patriarchal societies have always done” (154).
Indeed, “(a)ll convincing reconstructions of early foraging life posit an interdependence and
complementarity between women and men, rather than male dominance and patriarchy” (154). An example
Gross uses in support of this claim is that of the Neolithic horticultural society, which valued the feminine
both in the contributions of women to the survival of the community and in the worship of goddesses (154155). Even today, the majority of foraging societies do not exhibit male dominance (155).
12
While Gross discusses the claims put forth by some scholars that suggest the prepatriarchal period
was a “golden age” for women, she views the “attempted reconstruction of the prepatriarchal religion and
society (as)… the weak link in many versions of the prepatriarchal hypothesis” (156). Her reason for this
censure is that modern interpretations of material artifacts found in these societies may include idealized,
wistful assumptions about their use in that culture. Gross advances the argument made by Rosemary
Ruether:
Claims for the innocence or goodness of the prepatriarchal
societies (is) untenable because such claims link failure and
greed with patriarchy and men, rather than with human
beings, both male and female (159).
Gross, therefore, believes the only “reasonable” conclusion revealed through prepatriarchal study
is that, in prepatriarchal societies:
Women were less dominated than in later societies and that
female sacredness was more commonly venerated… (And)
women’s relationships with men were more satisfactory
(159).
Gross links this conclusion with her driving purpose by proposing that this knowledge will be
“empowering and useful in today’s world” (157).
Gross’ Claim #2 Patriarchy is “Technological” not “Biological”
In coming to understand why and how a male-dominated worldview became so prevalent, Gross
again relies upon archaeological and anthropological evidence which concludes that male dominance began
with the shift from horticulture to agriculture in approximately 5000 BCE (162). Gross is quick to state that
she does not believe in the assumption that women prefer peace whereas men are more violent (162).
Rather than a biological claim for male-dominance, then, Gross believes that “patriarchy is the result of
specific conditions that come into being at some point in cultural evolution and, when those conditions
change, patriarchy can die a natural death” (163). The technological, social and material changes that both
caused and resulted from the move to agriculture also caused male-dominance (164). Warfare, the decline
13
of women’s public power, and the decline of goddess worship are, in Gross’ claim, effects rather than
causes of the shift to patriarchy (164). Furthermore, Gross believes that religion changed to accommodate
these technological advances and the resultant social alterations (165). Again, Gross emphasizes the
relevance of these findings to our modern world:
Peace and egalitarianism will require postpatriarchal
symbols and ideologies as well as postpatriarchal
technologies…. (P)ostpatriarchal symbols and ideologies
will resemble prepatriarchal symbols of female sacredness
and egalitarian gender relationships more than they will
resemble patriarchal symbols and gender relationships
(165).
Gross’ Claim #3: Western Monotheism Ended Goddess Worship
After illustrating that industry led to the advance of patriarchy, Gross advances the theory that
patriarchy led to monotheism: “Exclusively masculine God-talk… was an even later development in
cultural evolution than the creation of patriarchy” (169). Gross points out that most male-dominated
societies, such as those in ancient Greece, would allow goddesses to be worshipped in some capacity:
“Although the goddess did gradually decline in importance and strength, no nonmonotheistic religion ever
tried to suppress veneration of goddesses or labeled it idolatry” (170). Gross proposes that “Western
monotheism is unique in its fear and denial of images of female divinity” (169) and that ancient Israel’s
monotheistic perspective “ended goddess worship” (172).
Conclusion
Gross concludes that societies have not always been male-dominated; that technology, not biology,
is responsible for the advent of male-dominance; and that monotheism is the result of patriarchy and this
eventually brought an end to goddess worship in monotheistic cultures. Throughout, Gross reminds readers
that this information is not passively important— it can serve to empower and enthuse modern men and
women to move into a postpatriarchal society.
14
#2 Evaluation
I felt that Gross supported the majority of her claims well. The accuracy of her arguments
regarding the existence of prepatriarchal societies, the eventual increase in male-dominance, and the
decrease in female power and goddess worship are supported by historical, archeological and
anthropological evidence. Moreover, Gross does a fine job of reminding her readers of what she wants
them to take from the chapter: the knowledge that it “hasn’t always been this way” (i.e., men haven’t
always dominated women) and that it doesn’t have to be that way in the future (i.e., with this knowledge,
humanity can move toward gender equality).
I felt that the most troublesome part of the chapter was the segment dealing with technology as the
cause of male-dominance. While Gross provided convincing arguments that the social structure of
agricultural societies led to more political power and private property and thus war became an attractive
option, I felt she omitted or assumed too much in a few instances. Gross stated that “once large-scale
warfare and significant social hierarchies became part of human society, both woman and goddesses readily
supported both” (161); while this may indeed have been the case, I was left questioning why women and
goddess figures supported the technological advances. I felt this could have been expanded upon. Also,
Gross proposes that technology, not gender, is what brings about “hierarchy and violence” (162). I
interpreted that Gross meant this statement to be a universal truth, not an incident in history. If so, how
would Gross explain that the greatest feminist movements began in America in the 19th and 20th centuries —
during a time when huge technological advances occurred. Also, if technology is to blame for gender
inequality, how should men and women in industrialized societies of the 21 st century move beyond
patriarchy? The lack of explanation or elaboration on Gross’ part diluted the strength of her arguments in
this section, at least in my understanding.
Also, while I found Gross’ survey of the monotheistic movement interesting, I felt she belied the
strength of her argument with the concluding statements in that section: “These historical debates are
interesting but in a certain sense irrelevant to contemporary uses of the Bible to promote or oppose
feminism” (180), “they are about what happened in the ancient world, not about what the Bible means today
to those who regard it with faith as a charter for their lives” (179). I perceived that Gross meant to be
sensitive to Jews and Christians of today by separating modern interpretations of the Bible from the
15
perspectives Jews and Christians held in earlier history . It is admirable to discern between individuals and
their overarching culture or religion. However, I felt that Gross’ statement was very dismissive of the
impact of history on present-day religious practices, which seemed to be one of Gross’ main arguments
previously, and was incongruent with Gross’ statements in previous chapters, i.e., Chapter Three where
Gross stated:
Religious communities constitute themselves in the present at least in part through
their collective memory… The religious significance of its remembered past to a
religious community cannot be overestimated, especially for Western religions (73).
#3 Wider Relevance
I felt Gross’ chapter succeeded in presenting the fact that male-dominance is neither a historical or
biological norm, nor a blueprint for cultural perfection. I glean that the “wider relevance” here is that, as
Gross states, simply being aware of this history can be “empowering and useful in today’s world” (157) for
advancing gender equality. While this knowledge may be empowering to people of all religious and
cultures, it would seem that the chapter has most relevance to those of the Jewish or Christian faith as Gross
explains why men and women of these faiths adopted certain attitudes toward the nature of their God and
toward each other — attitudes that are still dominant in one degree or another even today. Perhaps being
aware of concepts such as Hebrew goddesses or the idea that Jesus was a feminist could be helpful to some
present-day Jews and Christians in coming to a more complete understanding of the history of their faiths
and how this might impact the present-day feminist movement.
16
17