International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) 10.30845/ijhss

Grounds, Grounding and Reversing the Errors of Understanding Gender Inequality
Olajiga Isaac Oladeji

The paper selects and examines the pivotal issue of gender in religion. It is shown that by coherence what obtains in religion are supposed to be aspects of our lived-experience. A barrier is acknowledged in the part of the inquiry if the charge of gender inequality in religion is seen to be “unexamined” in governance. One main focus in the paper is to examine the “universalist assumption” that forms the basis for the justification of the belief in gender inequality. By reason of anthropocentricism, both male and female are connected as an outcome of their creation by God. This is how the main feature of anthropocentricism can easily be shown. In the paper, it is shown that the word, “man” is a mild holist integer for both male and female with a bias towards the male. It is thus the outcome of maintaining a thesis based on this bias that brings hints of gender inequality to the fore. However, a new balanced approach is suggested that will incorporate more realism and flexibility into the argument. It is presumed that the approach (in this sense, existentialist), will preserve neutrality with respect to sex. We simply speak of gender as conceptual requirement in the analysis of the grounding for understanding the basis for the inequality. The line of argument in the existentialist approach is that there is collective fulfillment when either sex enjoys central importance in governance. Gender thus becomes a clear comparative concept for “existential completeness.” This approach will not portray either of the two sexes as umpire in governance. The “process philosophy” of Whitehead permits some understanding of this argument as the issues surrounding gender might shift to the side of female having dominance in governance. The reasons for the prerogative of women would not be an issue.

Full Text: PDF