Legislating Gender Prejudice: Religion and the Overturning of Roe v Wade

R. Macleod
{"title":"Legislating Gender Prejudice: Religion and the Overturning of Roe v Wade","authors":"R. Macleod","doi":"10.55803/l364u","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the intersection of religion, gender identity, and gender prejudice within the American context of religious conservatism and the overturning of Roe v Wade. Discussion considers the overturning as a dangerous move that negates the rights and religious liberties of women, with adverse implications also for the rainbow community. Notably, this legislative context depicts the power of conservative Christian ideology to sustain hierarchical gender norms anchored in a binary consciousness, which privileges and empowers men (typically white, elite, heterosexual men), while diminishing and disempowering women and gender-diverse persons as non-normative and subsidiary. Discussion further conveys that this male-centred/androcentric ideology continues the oppressive legacy of male-dominant, fundamentalist biblical interpretation — a mode of interpretation heavily criticised within contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship as flawed and grievous in its promotion of gender prejudice. Accordingly, the overturning of Roe v Wade is relevant to the Australian context, for the same androcentricity and legacy of biblically-justified gender prejudice underpins all Western cultures. That is, manifold people, knowingly or reflexively, religious or otherwise, adhere to this biased interpretation and prejudicial gender consciousness through entrenched psychosocial Western norms. Not least, much scholarship has stressed that the issue of gender bias deeply pervades the structures of Australia’s justice system. Ultimately, this paper emphasises that understanding androcentricity and the legacy of injurious androcentric biblical interpretation is necessary to the tasks of negotiating religious freedom for all persons and cultivating non-sexist social and legal structures that uphold the rights of multiple gender identities and subjectivities.","PeriodicalId":118952,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55803/l364u","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores the intersection of religion, gender identity, and gender prejudice within the American context of religious conservatism and the overturning of Roe v Wade. Discussion considers the overturning as a dangerous move that negates the rights and religious liberties of women, with adverse implications also for the rainbow community. Notably, this legislative context depicts the power of conservative Christian ideology to sustain hierarchical gender norms anchored in a binary consciousness, which privileges and empowers men (typically white, elite, heterosexual men), while diminishing and disempowering women and gender-diverse persons as non-normative and subsidiary. Discussion further conveys that this male-centred/androcentric ideology continues the oppressive legacy of male-dominant, fundamentalist biblical interpretation — a mode of interpretation heavily criticised within contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship as flawed and grievous in its promotion of gender prejudice. Accordingly, the overturning of Roe v Wade is relevant to the Australian context, for the same androcentricity and legacy of biblically-justified gender prejudice underpins all Western cultures. That is, manifold people, knowingly or reflexively, religious or otherwise, adhere to this biased interpretation and prejudicial gender consciousness through entrenched psychosocial Western norms. Not least, much scholarship has stressed that the issue of gender bias deeply pervades the structures of Australia’s justice system. Ultimately, this paper emphasises that understanding androcentricity and the legacy of injurious androcentric biblical interpretation is necessary to the tasks of negotiating religious freedom for all persons and cultivating non-sexist social and legal structures that uphold the rights of multiple gender identities and subjectivities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
性别偏见立法:宗教与罗伊诉韦德案的推翻
本文探讨了在美国宗教保守主义和罗伊诉韦德案被推翻的背景下,宗教、性别认同和性别偏见的交集。讨论认为,这一推翻是一个危险的举动,否定了妇女的权利和宗教自由,也对彩虹社区产生了不利影响。值得注意的是,这种立法背景描绘了保守的基督教意识形态维持基于二元意识的等级性别规范的力量,这种意识赋予男性特权和权力(通常是白人、精英、异性恋男性),同时削弱和剥夺女性和性别多元化人士的权力,使其成为非规范和附属的。讨论进一步表明,这种以男性为中心/以男性为中心的意识形态延续了男性主导的、原教旨主义的圣经解释的压迫性遗产——这种解释模式在当代主流圣经学术中受到严厉批评,认为它在促进性别偏见方面存在缺陷和严重。因此,罗伊诉韦德案的推翻与澳大利亚的背景有关,因为同样的男性中心主义和圣经中合理的性别偏见遗产支撑着所有西方文化。也就是说,通过根深蒂固的西方社会心理规范,许多人有意或无意识地、有宗教信仰或没有宗教信仰地坚持这种偏见的解释和偏见的性别意识。尤其重要的是,许多学术研究都强调,性别偏见问题深深渗透在澳大利亚司法体系的结构中。最后,本文强调,理解“男性中心主义”和有害的“男性中心主义”圣经解释的遗留问题,对于为所有人争取宗教自由、培养非性别歧视的社会和法律结构、维护多重性别认同和主体性的权利是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law: Next Stop Section 116? Book Review: "Christians: The Urgent Case for Jesus in Our World" Law and Religion in the Classroom: Teaching Church-State Relationships Conversion Practices Legislation in Victoria -- A Potential Crisis for Church Authority? The Liberal and Post-Liberal Futures of Law and Religion in Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1