feminism.

I did my reading for gender and religion yesterday evening. In her article on "The Human Situation," Valerie Saiving purports that concepts of love and sin discussed within the religious community are gender-biased. Theologians and religious philosophers often recognize pride as the root of all sin; the opposite of pride, then, is forgetting the self, complete self sacrifice. Saiving suggests that women, by and large, are not as likely to find pride their greatest temptation. Using anthropological and biological arguments to explain the life and mind of women (some of her arguments are a bit sketch), she notes that perhaps women are more likely to become overburdened by the desire to be liked, to please others, to gossip, and to nurture at the expense of their personal lives.

Although I think pride is a universal human temptation, I do see Saiving's point as valid. Perhaps, at least for many men and women within societies that encourage gender roles and enforce certain gender expectations, women express pride differently than the enterprising pride of ambitious men. I struggle with matters of self worth that stem from my reliance on the acceptance of others. I overburden myself, desiring to please those I respect and those from whom I seek advice.

Saiving is incorrect to assume that men and women sin differently; I do think there exist basic human motivations, temptations that plague both genders. But the fact that essential religious matters and doctrines are primarily publicly discussed and circulated by men exposes a hole in theological thought. How can all of humankind be understood in relation to God if only the works of men are widely circulated and fully discussed?