Religion and women’s gender identity is one of the most discussed issues of the last decade. Many debates about women and religion continue today, particularly given the rise in religiously motivated conflicts around the globe. An emotive, sensitive and often controversial subject, religion has become the main focus of many a conflict throughout human history, we will seek to examine its ongoing influence on female gender identity.

One of the reasons women as a social group experience subordination through religion is the influence of lasting patriarchal conventions. Religion and patriarchy are almost bedfellows of some sort, a kind of symbiotic pair, influencing women’s choices and gender identity. Though very different, both religion and patriarchy reproduce each other; religion holds enormous social, political and institutional power in many countries and communities; power that can be leveraged especially by those in positions of authority to control bodies and sexuality and enforce discriminatory, narrow and dogmatic norms. It is often established patriarchal norms that facilitate the reinforcement of such control. Keeping in mind that in all religions and cultures, there is always a range of different interpretations, ideas, practices and beliefs, and also the possibility of transformation, evolution and change, I hope to explore the possibilities this idea opens up.

Religion can be defined as a set of values and rules that people who so desire, adhere to. Patriarchy, on the other hand, is a system of social structures in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women and in which women are socialised and can learn to advocate patriarchal structures and themselves dominate other women and men using these tools. Many definitions of patriarchy exist, and they all involve the unequal treatment of women by men based on an inward, ingrained belief that men are superior and women inferior. One way in which patriarchy is thus enacted is through religious systems.

"Religion and patriarchy are almost bedfellows of some sort, a kind of symbiotic pair."

Whether in Europe, Africa or elsewhere, many of the conflicts that are part of our history could have been well avoided, prevented even, if people could detach themselves from often deep-seated religious convictions, which in many cases transcend national values and boundaries. We are at a crucial time in human history, at which many people’s identities are completely defined by religion. Many conflicts today are characterised by clashes between religious identity and national identity. Although that is not the basis of this article, which is solely concerned with how religion and patriarchy define women’s identity and participation in development, it is important to give a brief analogy of the power of religion in global affairs as a point of departure.

To further explore the issue of how religion defines women’s identity today, it is important to again consider women’s place in society and how women’s spaces are religiously confined, constrained and contentiously controlled.  The way in which the contention between religious identity and national identity play out is a rocky trajectory over the course of which women are often heavily subjugated. It can be religion that dictates what women do with their bodies, for instance. This is because women’s bodies, often considered to be the bearers or markers of religious, communal, national or cultural identities, are targeted by all kinds of fundamentalisms, and are thus considered to be rightfully subject to various forms of control.

One of the ways in which this religious control over women’s bodies is made apparent is how women view their reproductive rights, their right to movement and their right to association.  Indeed, for many women, choices they make about their lives are controlled by their religious identity. The case of Muslim women, for instance, quickly comes to mind, for whom choices of marriage, fashion and career are tightly controlled by religion. In Saudi Arabia, for example, women can only drive a car if accompanied by a male relative, and women are more concentrated in careers such as teaching and nursing, to reinforce religious patriarchy.  For many women of various religious faiths, the way in which they experience this control can be seen in cases of early marriage, male child preference, acceptance of some forms of domestic violence, observance of harmful traditional practices, inability to seek divorce in cases of bad marriages and also the issue of reproductive rights, which I will proceed to explore in more detail.

"For women in certain parts of the world, even the way they dress is defined by religious values."

Anywhere in the world where religious values are strictly adhered to, one generally notices the influence of patriarchy. They are so often inseparable. Religion and patriarchy are some of the most contested issues in much feminist work, as they are arguably central to the whole ideology of biological essentialism. Biological essentialism, or biological determinism, is the belief that we are ‘how we are’ because of our genetic makeup, including race and sex. This particular essentialism, which assumes that that behaviours and preferences are biologically predetermined, rather than the result of choices we make or of the environments we are exposed to, has been used to justify inequality, discrimination and the oppression of women at all levels and the belief systems of many religions can perpetuate this understanding.

Feminists continue to challenge male supremacist theories which suppose that men are better than women in all ways and that women’s brains were modelled differently from men’s. This kind of thinking is common in many religions of the world, and is perhaps the very foundation of female subordination. It reinforces the belief that women are fit to fulfil only certain roles in society, primarily childbearing and rearing.  In other words, women’s place was in the private sphere and men’s in the public, an assumption that is still being challenged today, and for which women who have broken through barriers to be in the public sphere have been called many demeaning names.

Throughout history, religion has in effect promoted the idea of women’s subordination.  However was this always so? This question can be very difficult to answer unless we take a fleeting look at how societies were organised before the modern era.

For this, I look to the Yakkurr society of modern day Cross River, in Nigeria, which before the coming of the Christian religion practiced a form of traditional African religion in which homage was paid to a female deity. In fact, according to oral history, the Yakkurr people of today owe their very existence as a people to her. Mma Esekpa was a warrior and spiritual figurehead for the people; she fought and conquered wars on their behalf and led them to their present and permanent place of residence in Cross River. One of the ways through which obedience to this deity is displayed can be seen during the annual celebration.

The Yakkurr New Yam Festival, in the month of August, is a ritualistic festival in which all the necessary rituals are performed by male chiefs and traditional spiritual heads. Women can observe these rituals from a distance, but cannot take part in them, even though allegiance is being pledged to a female deity. To this day, Yakkurr traditionalists continue to seek this deity, for protection, good harvest and prosperity. Though this tradition exists, women continue to be considered subordinate. This is perhaps even more true now, since the now widely popular Christian religion has deepened the people’s existing patriarchal structures, and men continue to dominate in both spheres.

Feminists strongly maintain that organised religion controls women and moreover, influences women’s attitude towards empowerment. Religion has the power to encourage women to be passive, to stay in the background, and to not challenge socially agreed norms of femininity, for instance.

This is because religion, as already established in this article, is generally hierarchical: male-dominated, male-led and typically patriarchal. The major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and traditional African religions, are all male-led. The whole hierarchy is male-orientated but with large female followership.

The highest-paid religious leaders are male. There has never been a female pope, and though it sounds extreme, we can say with some certainty that there never will be one. The Dalai Lama is male, the Islamic Imams are male; women do not and should not be seen to aspire to these levels of leadership.  Even though it must be said that there is a growing number of Christian female religious leaders in some Christian denominations, the proportion of female religious leaders to male religious leaders in the world over is low. There are currently more male bishops than there would ever be female bishops in the foreseeable future even within the new, less traditional Christian movement.

This clearly has implications for women’s gender identity, which has throughout history been largely defined by the influences of religion. This is so because religion has and continues to recreate demarcations in society:  rich and poor, good and bad, black and white, etc., and when women find themselves on the lower, less pleasing, less privileged side of the social divide, they turn to religious values to help them make an understanding of this dysfunction.

For women in certain parts of the world, even the way they dress is defined by religious values. Take the case of Muslim women in some parts of the world (women in purdah), who must conform to an Islamic religious dress code. The whole philosophy of respectability has so much to do with religion; the subordinate ways in which women should address their partners, for example,  is clearly embedded in religious teachings. Even the way women access and use birth control, for instance, is clearly defined by religion. Many religious sects hold that it is wrong for women to use birth control, as women were created to fulfil reproductive roles – an argument that does not sit very well with socialist feminists.

In a study in Lagos in 2005 involving women of childbearing age, it was discovered that deep-seated religious influences played a major role in women’s decision whether or not to use contraception. Those who sought advice felt they had betrayed their religious beliefs in some way. Yet for some others, it was “wrong to use unnatural ways to stall conception” as “life is a gift”. These sentiments were common among both literate and illiterate women. In their opinions, it was particularly awful and even degrading to suggest that the use of contraception should be given as much thought and consideration as other values in their lives. They questioned why what could be given “freely” should not be taken “freely”.  They interpreted the use of contraception as rejecting something valuable.

Attitudes such as the above are not uncommon in Nigeria and they clearly show how much women’s gender identity has been shaped by religious values. More importantly, they expose how often well-thought-out development interventions can be misunderstood and taken for granted.

Similar instances exist in most other parts of the world. For instance, in South American states (such as Peru), reports show that women are systematically denied contraception as part of strong beliefs firmly rooted in Catholic teachings. State legislation prohibits abortions and women who patronise back street abortion clinics can be prosecuted and face lengthy prison sentences if caught. Many women have died in these unsafe procedures, as the state ill-advisedly refuses to provide safe alternatives. Lack of access to contraception and abortion in places likes Peru is responsible in part for high mortality rates among the female population. Even in instances where complications in pregnancy may place a woman’s life in danger, the state still denies access to terminations or contraception.

Of course, in the case of reproductive rights and birth control, coercive means cannot be used to achieve any sustainable outcomes, as this may in itself further impede women’s rights struggles. In places where these attitudes have been seen to pose a problem for women accessing birth control where it is readily available, a more pragmatic approach involving long term campaigns with local religious leaders can have a more lasting impact on how women view and use birth control.

In conclusion, given the power and privilege that religion holds across societies, ‘speaking on behalf of God’ can carry great influence and weight, which it can be very difficult to challenge. However, as individuals, we need to stand up for our right to celebrate, reject, redefine, reclaim and embrace religions and beliefs, but more importantly, to reject attitudes and impositions which misconstrue and challenge our very existence as women and continuously erode our gender identity. We must not stop campaigning for what is right; we must continue to push boundaries and define and promote our gender identity.